Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1168

Environmental Impact Statement for EA-18G “Growler”

Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station


Whidbey Island Complex, WA
Volume 4: Appendices D through M

September 2018

Prepared for:

1002860.0041.06
1002860.0041.11-B4325

Environmental Impact Statement for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield


Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Complex
Volume 4
Appendices D through M

September 2018

Prepared by:

United States Department of the Navy


This page intentionally left blank.
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Appendix D
Transportation Trip Generation Data

D-1

Appendix D
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

D-2

Appendix D
Appendix D: Trip Generation Data
Percentage of Existing Housing Unit Types
Housing Unit Type (American Island Skagit Mount Oak
ITE Land Use Code FactFinder) County County Anacortes Coupeville Vernon Harbor
Single-Family Detached Housing 1-unit, detached 0.773 0.734 0.764 0.65 0.59 0.501
Low-Rise Residential 1-unit, attached 0.03 0.026 0.037 0.032 0.029 0.095
Condominium/Townhouse
Low-Rise Apartment 2 units, 3 or 4 units, 5 to 9 units, 10 0.112 0.159 0.174 0.199 0.318 0.34
to 19 units, 20 or more units
Mobile Park Home Mobile home, Boat, RV, van, etc. 0.084 0.08 0.024 0.12 0.062 0.063
Source: USCB n.d. c; Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2012

Expected Distribution of Household Trips


Municipality Dependents Personnel
City of Oak Harbor 69.9% 100.0%
Town of Coupeville 4.6% 8.8%
Anacortes 12.2% 21.4%
Mount Vernon 5.0% 9.2%
Island County 4.2% 4.2%
Skagit County 4.2% 4.2%
Distribution of trips is based on "Personnel Stationed and Employed at NAS Whidbey Island by Place of Residence" Source: Coury, 2018
Note: All Navy personnel trips are assumed to start or end at Ault Field; all Navy personnel dependent trips are assumed to stay within municipality of residence
Assumed no new Navy personnel would live on base; the percentage of Navy personnel living on base (41.6%) was distributed proportionally across the study area

Total Number of Households by Alternative

Municipality Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3


Total Households 335 628 341
City of Oak Harbor 234 439 238
Town of Coupeville 15 29 16
Anacortes 41 77 42
Mount Vernon 17 31 17
Island County 14 26 14
Skagit County 14 26 14
Number of households is based on "Personnel Stationed and Employed at NAS Whidbey Island by Place of Residence" Source: Coury, 2018
Number of New Household Unit Type Under Alternative 1
Skagit Mount
ITE Land Use Code Island County County Anacortes Coupeville Vernon Oak harbor
Single-Family Detached Housing 11 10 31 10 10 117
Low-Rise Residential Condominium/ Townhou 0 0 2 0 0 22
Low-Rise Apartment 2 2 7 3 5 80
Mobile Park Home 1 1 1 2 1 15
Number of households is based on "Personnel Stationed and Employed at NAS Whidbey Island by Place of Residence" (Source: Coury, 2018) and percentage of existing housing unit types (Source: USCB n.d. c)

Number of New Household Unit Type Under Alternative 2


Skagit Mount
ITE Land Use Code Island County County Anacortes Coupeville Vernon Oak harbor
Single-Family Detached Housing 20 19 59 19 19 220
Low-Rise Residential Condominium/ Townhou 1 1 3 1 1 42
Low-Rise Apartment 3 4 13 6 10 149
Mobile Park Home 2 2 2 3 2 28
Number of households is based on "Personnel Stationed and Employed at NAS Whidbey Island by Place of Residence" (Source: Coury, 2018) and percentage of existing housing unit types (Source: USCB n.d. c)

Number of New Household Unit Type Under Alternative 3


Skagit Mount
ITE Land Use Code Island County County Anacortes Coupeville Vernon Oak harbor
Single-Family Detached Housing 11 11 32 10 10 119
Low-Rise Residential Condominium/ Townhou 0 0 2 1 0 23
Low-Rise Apartment 2 2 7 3 5 81
Mobile Park Home 1 1 1 2 1 15
Number of households is based on "Personnel Stationed and Employed at NAS Whidbey Island by Place of Residence" (Source: Coury, 2018) and percentage of existing housing unit types (Source: USCB n.d. c)

Dependent Trip Generation Under Alternative 1


Skagit Mount
ITE Land Use Code Island County County Anacortes Coupeville Vernon Oak harbor
Single-Family Detached Housing 82 78 235 75 74 882
Low-Rise Residential Condominium/ Townhou 2 1 6 2 2 85
Low-Rise Apartment 7 10 33 14 25 370
Mobile Park Home 4 3 3 6 3 44
Total 94 93 277 97 104 1381
Trip generation is based on number of new household unit type and ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition (Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2012)
Note: Assumed 2 trips per household from ITE trip generation rate were Navy personnel traveling to and from Ault Field
Dependent Trip Generation Under Alternative 2
Skagit Mount
ITE Land Use Code Island County County Anacortes Coupeville Vernon Oak harbor
Single-Family Detached Housing 153 146 440 141 139 1654
Low-Rise Residential Condominium/ Townhou 3 3 11 4 3 159
Low-Rise Apartment 14 20 62 27 46 694
Mobile Park Home 7 6 5 10 6 83
Total 177 174 518 182 195 2589
Trip generation is based on number of new household unit type and ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition (Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2012)
Note: Assumed 2 trips per household from ITE trip generation rate were Navy personnel traveling to and from Ault Field

Dependent Trip Generation Under Alternative 3


Skagit Mount
ITE Land Use Code Island County County Anacortes Coupeville Vernon Oak harbor
Single-Family Detached Housing 83 79 239 77 76 898
Low-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhou 2 1 6 2 2 86
Low-Rise Apartment 7 11 34 15 25 377
Mobile Park Home 4 3 3 6 3 45
Total 96 94 282 99 106 1406
Trip generation is based on number of new household unit type and ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition (Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2012)
Note: Assumed 2 trips per household from ITE trip generation rate were Navy personnel traveling to and from Ault Field
Appendix D Transportation LOS
No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Percentage of NAS Percentage of NAS


Whidbey Island Whidbey Island
Personnel Trip Personnel Dependent
Existing 2010 HCM Rural or Number Speed 2-Lane Generation Trip Generation Growth Rate
Road Municipality Location ADT ADT Year Table K-Factor D-Factor Urban of Lanes Limit Highway Type Existing LOS Assignment Assignment (2015-2020)* ADT LOS ADT LOS ADT LOS ADT LOS
SR 525 Island County At Clinton Ferry Dock 6,100 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 30 n/a C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 6,192 C 6,314 C 6,421 C 6,316 C
SR 525 Island County East of Humphrey Rd 7,300 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 30 n/a C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 7,410 C 7,532 C 7,639 C 7,534 C
SR 525 Island County West of Humphrey Rd 8,700 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 30 n/a C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 8,831 C 8,953 C 9,060 C 8,955 C
SR 525 Island County East of Cedar Vista Dr 9,400 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 40 n/a C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 9,541 C 9,663 C 9,770 C 9,666 C
SR 525 Island County West of Campbell Rd 9,500 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 9,643 C 9,765 C 9,872 C 9,767 C
SR 525 Island County East of Maxwelton Rd 11,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 11,165 C 11,287 C 11,394 C 11,290 C
SR 525 Island County West of Maxwelton Rd 12,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 12,180 C 12,302 C 12,409 C 12,305 C
SR 525 Island County West of Bayview Rd 13,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 13,195 C 13,317 C 13,424 C 13,320 C
SR 525 Freeland West of Fish Rd 14,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 45 n/a C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 14,210 C 14,332 C 14,439 C 14,335 C
SR 525 Freeland East of Honeymoon Bay Rd 12,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 45 n/a C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 12,180 C 12,302 C 12,409 C 12,305 C
SR 525 Freeland West of Honeymoon Bay Rd 7,200 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I B 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 7,308 B 7,430 B 7,537 B 7,433 B
SR 525 Island County North of Ellwood Dr 7,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I B 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 7,105 B 7,227 B 7,334 B 7,230 B
SR 525 Island County South of SR 20 7,600 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I B 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 7,714 B 7,836 B 7,943 B 7,839 B
SR 20 Island County West of SR 525 and Race Rd 1,100 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I B 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 1,117 B 1,239 B 1,346 B 1,241 B
SR 20 Island County North of SR 525 and Race Rd 7,100 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I B 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 7,207 B 7,329 B 7,436 B 7,331 B
SR 20 Island County East of Quail Trail Lane 8,800 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 4.20% 10.60% 1.50% 8,932 C 9,054 C 9,161 C 9,057 C
SR 20 Coupeville East of Main St 8,500 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I B 8.80% 5.90% 1.50% 8,628 B 8,783 C 8,920 C 8,786 C
SR 20 Coupeville West of Main St 11,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 8.80% 5.90% 1.50% 11,165 C 11,321 C 11,457 C 11,324 C
SR 20 Island County South of Libbey Rd 12,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 8.80% 10.60% 1.50% 12,180 C 12,333 C 12,467 C 12,336 C
SR 20 Island County North of Sidney St 13,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 8.80% 10.60% 1.50% 13,195 C 13,348 C 13,482 C 13,351 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor South of Swantown Rd 16,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 30 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 16,240 D 18,291 D 20,085 E 18,328 D
SR 20 Oak Harbor North of Swantown Rd 20,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 30 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 20,300 C 22,351 C 24,145 C 22,388 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor West of Beeksma Dr 18,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 30 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 18,270 C 20,321 C 22,115 C 20,358 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor North of SE Pioneer Way 15,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 30 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 15,225 C 17,276 C 19,070 C 17,313 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor North of SE Barrington Ave 19,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 30 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 19,285 C 21,336 C 23,130 C 21,373 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor South of SE Sixth Ave 21,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 40 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 21,315 C 23,366 C 25,160 C 23,403 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor North of SE Sixth Ave 21,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 40 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 21,315 C 23,366 C 25,160 C 23,403 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor South of SE Midway Blvd 18,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 40 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 18,270 C 20,321 C 22,115 C 20,358 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor North of Goldie St 15,000 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 40 n/a C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 15,225 C 17,276 C 19,070 D 17,313 C
SR 20 Oak Harbor North of Case Rd 13,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I C 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 13,195 C 15,246 D 17,040 D 15,283 D
SR 20 Oak Harbor North of Regatta Dr 17,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I D 100.00% 70.80% 1.50% 17,255 D 19,306 D 21,100 D 19,343 D
SR 20 Island County South of Frostad Rd 18,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I D 21.40% 10.60% 1.50% 18,270 D 18,508 D 18,715 D 18,512 D
SR 20 Island County North of Frostad Rd 17,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I D 21.40% 10.60% 1.50% 17,255 D 17,493 D 17,700 D 17,497 D
SR 20 Island County North of Banta Rd 17,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I D 21.40% 10.60% 1.50% 17,255 D 17,493 D 17,700 D 17,497 D
SR 20 Skagit County South of Rosario Dr 18,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I Rolling D 21.40% 10.60% 5.30% 18,954 D 19,190 D 19,397 D 19,194 D
SR 20 Skagit County North of Rosario Dr 15,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I Rolling D 21.40% 10.60% 5.30% 15,795 D 16,031 D 16,238 D 16,035 D
SR 20 Anacortes South of SR 20 Spur 19,000 2016 Exhibit 15-30 0.09 0.55 Rural 2 55 Class I D 21.40% 7.60% 5.30% 20,007 D 20,427 D 20,794 D 20,434 D
SR 20 Anacortes East of SR 20 Spur 33,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 21.40% 7.60% 5.30% 34,749 B 35,169 B 35,536 B 35,176 B
SR 20 Skagit County West of March Point Rd 33,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 34,749 B 34,903 B 35,039 B 34,906 B
SR 20 Skagit County East of March Point Rd 33,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 34,749 B 34,903 B 35,039 B 34,906 B
SR 20 Skagit County West of LaConner Whitney Rd 34,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 35,802 B 35,956 B 36,092 B 35,959 B
SR 20 Skagit County East of LaConner Whitney Rd 34,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 35,802 B 35,956 B 36,092 B 35,959 B
SR 20 Skagit County West of SR 536 32,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 33,696 B 33,850 B 33,986 B 33,853 B
SR 20 Skagit County East of SR 536 25,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 26,325 B 26,479 B 26,615 B 26,482 B
SR 20 Skagit County West of Avon Allen Rd 27,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 28,431 B 28,585 B 28,721 B 28,588 B
SR 20 Skagit County East of Avon Allen Rd 29,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 30,537 B 30,691 B 30,827 B 30,694 B
SR 20 Skagit County East of Pulver Rd 28,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 10.60% 5.30% 29,484 B 29,638 B 29,774 B 29,641 B
SR 20 Burlington Under I-5 27,000 2016 Exhibit 14-19 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 35 n/a B 9.20% 5.10% 5.30% 28,431 B 28,597 B 28,742 B 28,600 B
I-5 Burlington North of SR 20 57,000 2016 Exhibit 10-8 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a B 9.20% 5.10% 5.30% 60,021 B 60,187 B 60,332 B 60,190 B
I-5 Burlington South of SR 20 73,000 2016 Exhibit 10-8 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 55 n/a C 9.20% 5.10% 5.30% 76,869 D 77,035 D 77,180 D 77,038 D
Banta Rd Island County West of SR 20 Spur 1,470 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 40 n/a C 5.00% 0% 1.50% 1,492 C 1,620 C 1,732 C 1,622 C
Clover Valley Rd Island County West of Heller Road 2,864 2016 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 40 n/a C 10.00% 0% 1.50% 2,907 C 3,068 C 3,209 C 3,071 C
Heller Rd Island County South of Ault Field Road 6,995 2014 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 45 n/a C 20.00% 0% 4.30% 7,296 C 7,524 C 7,724 C 7,528 C
Ault Field Rd Island County West of Langley Blvd 8,171 2014 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 35 n/a C 10.00% 0% 4.30% 8,522 C 8,684 C 8,825 C 8,686 C
Ault Field Rd Island County East of Langley Blvd 10,073 2014 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 35 n/a C 50.00% 0% 4.30% 10,506 C 10,935 C 11,311 C 10,943 C
Oak Harbor Rd Island County South of Ault Field Road 5,174 2014 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 40 n/a C 25.00% 0% 4.30% 5,396 C 5,658 C 5,887 C 5,663 C
Ault Field Rd Island County East of Oak Harbor Rd 10,506 2014 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 40 n/a C 30.00% 0% 4.30% 10,958 C 11,253 C 11,511 C 11,258 C
Goldie Rd Island County North of Ault Field Rd 8,864 2010 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 4 35 n/a C 28.00% 0% 7.10% 9,493 C 9,775 C 10,022 C 9,780 C
Goldie Rd Island County South of Ault Field Road 7,561 2011 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 40 n/a C 20.00% 0% 7.10% 8,098 C 8,326 C 8,526 C 8,330 C
Appendix D Transportation LOS
No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Percentage of NAS Percentage of NAS


Whidbey Island Whidbey Island
Personnel Trip Personnel Dependent
Existing 2010 HCM Rural or Number Speed 2-Lane Generation Trip Generation Growth Rate
Road Municipality Location ADT ADT Year Table K-Factor D-Factor Urban of Lanes Limit Highway Type Existing LOS Assignment Assignment (2015-2020)* ADT LOS ADT LOS ADT LOS ADT LOS
Ault Field Rd Island County East of Goldie Road 8,876 2014 Exhibit 16-14 0.09 0.55 Urban 2 40 n/a C 35.00% 0% 4.30% 9,258 C 9,586 C 9,874 C 9,592 C
Assumptions
All military personnel trips are assumed to start or end at Ault Field; all military dependent trips are assumed to stay within municipality of residence
All trips are assumed to start or end at NAS Whidbey Island
Percentage of trips on individual road segments is based on "Personnel Stationed and Employed at NAS Whidbey Island by Place of Residence" Source:Coury, 2018
* Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017 (Growthrate between 2010-2020 used for ADT from 2010 and 2011; Growthrate from 2015-2020 used for ADT from 2014; Growth rate from 2017-2020 used for ADT from 2016)
Key:
ADT = average daily traffic
LOS = level of service
K-Factor = The proportion of average daily traffic that occurs during the peak hour
D-Factor = The proportion of traffic moving in the peak direction of travel on a given roadway during the peak hour.
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Appendix E
Land Use Data, High-tempo FCLP Year

E-1

Appendix E
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

E-2

Appendix E
Table E-1 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario A (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario A
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 515 234 594 1,343
(+221) (-42) (+42) (+20%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 86 162 93 341
(+49) (-41) (-13) (-1%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 57 307 198 562
(+57) (-47) (-9) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 459 428 254 1,141
(-137) (+112) (+73) (+4%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 647 237 257 1,141
(+136) (+59) (-16) (+19%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,757 1,306 2,808 5,871
(+202) (-21) (+28) (+4%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 370 502 1,429 2,301
(-8) (+13) (+30) (+2%)
Transportation5 120 117 355 592 134 101 359 594
(+14) (-16) (+4) (0%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 40 0 0 40
(+29) (0) (0) (+264%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 4,066 3,277 6,004 13,347
(+563) (+17) (+139) (+6%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 342 459 1,134 1,935
(-512) (-245) (+1,014) (+22%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 3
(+2) (0) (0) (+200%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 317 414 472 1,203
(-56) (+108) (+373) (+55%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 68 5 0 73
(+29) (0) (0) (+66%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 437 1,334 2,244 4,015
(-970) (+325) (+2,016) (+52%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 335 772 1,519 2,626
(-571) (-161) (+1,305) (+28%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 81 81 223 385
(-51) (+1) (+176) (+49%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-1 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario A (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario A
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 1,583 3,065 5,634 10,282
(-2,134) (+11) (+4,997) (+39%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 5,649 6,342 11,638 23,629
(-1,571) (+28) (+5,136) (+18%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-2 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario B (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario B
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 537 222 637 1,396
(+243) (-54) (+85) (+24%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 43 202 105 350
(+6) (-1) (-1) (+1%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 2 309 250 561
(+2) (-45) (+43) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 427 460 270 1,157
(-169) (+144) (+89) (+6%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 701 234 295 1,230
(+190) (+56) (+22) (+28%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,728 1,240 3,092 6,060
(+173) (-87) (+312) (+7%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 368 504 1,486 2,358
(-10) (+15) (+87) (+4%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 128 102 380 610
(+8) (-15) (+25) (+3%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 37 0 0 37
(+26) (0) (0) (+236%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,972 3,273 6,527 13,772
(+469) (+13) (+662) (+9%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 377 508 854 1,739
(-477) (-196) (+824) (+10%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 315 400 340 1,055
(-58) (+94) (+241) (+36%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 24 0 0 24
(-15) (-5) (0) (-45%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 701 1,583 1,550 3,834
(-706) (+574) (+1,322) (+45%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 414 869 1,256 2,539
(-492) (-64) (+1,042) (+24%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 66 108 172 346
(-66) (+28) (+125) (+34%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-2 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario B (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario B
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 1,898 3,468 4,214 9,508
(-1,819) (+414) (+3,577) (+29%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 5,870 6,741 10,741 23,352
(-1,350) (+427) (+4,239) (+17%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-3 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario C (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario C
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 461 181 700 1,342
(+167) (-95) (+148) (+20%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 53 188 122 363
(+16) (-15) (+16) (+5%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 1 277 284 562
(+1) (-77) (+77) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 437 438 283 1,158
(-159) (+122) (+102) (+6%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 744 271 339 1,354
(+233) (+93) (+66) (+41%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,753 1,192 3,304 6,249
(+198) (-135) (+524) (+10%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 379 465 1,569 2,413
(+1) (-24) (+170) (+6%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 125 103 395 623
(+5) (-14) (+40) (+5%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 44 1 0 45
(+33) (+1) (0) (+309%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,998 3,116 7,008 14,122
(+495) (-144) (+1,143) (+12%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 496 713 235 1, 444
(-358) (+9) (+205) (-9%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
(-1) (0) (0) (-100%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 1 9 10
(0) (-1) (+2) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 4 24 28
(0) (-11) (+12) (+4%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 410 246 134 790
(+37) (-60) (+35) (+2%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 1 0 0 1
(-38) (-5) (0) (-98%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 1,580 1,269 491 3,340
(+173) (+260) (+263) (+26%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 867 824 535 2,226
(-39) (-109) (+321) (+8%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 100 120 68 288
(-32) (+40) (+21) (+11%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 5
(-5) (+5) (0) (0%)
Table E-3 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario C (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario C
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 3,454 3,182 1,496 8,132
(-263) (+128) (+859) (+10%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 7,452 6,298 8,504 22,254
(+232) (-16) (+2,002) (+11%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-4 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario D (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario D
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 493 210 632 1,335
(+199) (-66) (+80) (+19%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 59 186 101 346
(+22) (-17) (-5) (0%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 20 320 222 562
(+20) (-34) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 460 420 261 1,141
(-136) (+104) (+80) (+4%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 663 233 287 1,183
(+152) (+55) (+14) (+23%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,744 1,254 2,960 5,958
(+189) (-73) (+180) (+5%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 377 482 1,465 2,324
(-1) (-7) (+66) (+3%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 134 98 372 604
(+14) (-19) (+17) (+2%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 45 0 0 45
(+34) (0) (0) (+309%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,996 3,203 6,312 13,511
(+493) (-57) (+447) (+7%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 330 477 1068 1,875
(-524) (-227) (+1,038) (+18%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 314 422 436 1,172
(-59) (+116) (+337) (+51%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 57 4 0 61
(+18) (-1) (0) (+39%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 440 1,454 2,083 3,977
(-967) (+445) (+1,855) (+50%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 337 820 1,500 2,657
(-569) (-113) (+1,286) (+29%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 77 88 211 376
(-55) (+8) (+164) (+45%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-4 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario D (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario D
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 1,556 3,265 5,340 10,161
(-2,161 (+211) (+4,703) (+37%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 5,552 6,468 11,652 23,672
(-1,668) (+154) (+5,150) (+18%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-5 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario E (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario E
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 465 182 695 1,342
(+171) (-94) (+143) (+20%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 51 193 116 360
(+14) (-10) (+10) (+4%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 1 287 273 561
(+1) (-67) (+66) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 441 436 278 1,155
(-155) (+120) (+97) (+6%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 739 261 332 1,332
(+228) (+83) (+59) (+38%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,743 1,200 3,252 6,195
(+1878 (-127) (+472) (+9%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 374 472 1,548 2,394
(-4) (-17) (+149) (+6%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 125 103 391 619
(+5) (-14) (+36) (+5%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 45 0 0 45
(+34) (0) (0) (+309%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,985 3,134 6,897 14,016
(+482) (-126) (+1,032) (+11%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 453 596 548 1,597
(-401) (-108) (+518) (+1%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
(-1) (0) (0) (-100%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 412 281 203 896
(+39) (-25) (+104) (+15%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 5 0 0 5
(-34) (-5) (0) (-89%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 1,292 1,461 835 3,588
(-115) (+452) (+607) (+36%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 754 736 882 2,372
(-152) (-197) (+668) (+16%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 79 117 109 305
(-53) (+37) (+62) (+18%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 4 1 5
(-5) (+4) (1) (0%)
Table E-5 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 1, Scenario E (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario E
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 2,995 3,195 2,615 8,805
(-722) (+141) (+1,978) (+19%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 6,980 6,329 9,512 22,821
(-240) (+15) (+3,010) (+14%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-6 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario A (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario A
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 512 217 606 1,335
(+218) (-59) (+54) (+19%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 94 154 92 340
(+57) (-49) (-14) (-2%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 63 302 197 562
(+63) (-52) (-10) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 467 424 249 1,140
(-129) (+108) (+68) (+4%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 639 236 249 1,124
(+128) (+58) (-24) (+17%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,772 1,328 2,771 5,871
(+217) (+1) (-9) (+4%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 367 508 1,417 2,292
(-11) (+19) (+18) (+1%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 135 103 356 594
(+15) (-14) (+1) (0%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 35 0 0 35
(+24) (0) (0) (+218%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 4,085 3,272 5,949 13,306
(+582) (+12) (+84) (+5%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 331 478 1070 1,879
(-523) (-226) (+1,040) (+18%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 313 422 435 1,170
(-60 (+116) (+336) (+50%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 58 4 0 62
(+19) (-1) (0) (+41%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 443 1,467 2,069 3,979
(-964) (+458) (+1,841) (+50%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 338 824 1,497 2,659
(-568) (-109) (+1,283) (+30%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 77 88 210 375
(-55) (+8) (+163) (+45%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-6 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario A (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario A
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 1,561 3,283 5,323 10,167
(-2,156) (+229) (+4,686) (+37%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 5,646 6,555 11,272 23,473
(-1,574) (+241) (+4,770) (+13%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-7 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario B (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario B
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 514 221 636 1,371
(+220) (-55) (+84) (+22%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 43 202 104 349
(+6) (-1) (-2) (+1%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 3 311 248 562
(+3) (-43) (+41) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 438 451 265 1,154
(-158) (+135) (+84) (+6%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 693 231 293 1,217
(+182) (+53) (+20) (+27%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,727 1,247 3,075 6,049
(+172) (-80) (+295) (+7%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 373 502 1,480 2,355
(-5) (+13) (+81) (+4%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 128 102 379 609
(+8) (-15) (+24) (+3%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 32 0 0 32
(+21) (0) (0) (+191%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,952 3,267 6,492 13,711
(+449) (+7) (+627) (+9%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 398 519 800 1,717
(-456) (-185) (+770) (+8%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 316 397 318 1,031
(-57) (+91) (+219) (+33%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 17 0 0 17
(-22) (-5) (0) (-61%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 791 1,586 1,409 3,786
(-616) (+577) (+1,181) (+43%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 475 849 1,190 2,514
(-431) (-84) (+976) (+22%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 65 110 161 336
(-67) (+30) (+114) (+30%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-7 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario B (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario B
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 2, 063 3,461 3,920 9,444
(-1,654) (+407) (+3,283) (+27%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 6,015 6,728 10,412 23,155
(-1,205) (+414) (+3,910) (+16%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-8 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario C (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario C
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 470 182 692 1,344
(+176) (-94) (+140) (+20%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 50 195 113 358
(+13) (-8) (+7) (+3%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 2 292 268 562
(+2) (-62) (+61) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 443 438 273 1,154
(-153) (+122) (+92) (+6%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 731 255 330 1,316
(+220) (+77) (+57) (+37%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,748 1,204 3,228 6,180
(+193) (-123) (+448) (+9%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 381 471 1,539 2,391
(+3) (-18) (+140) (+6%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 125 103 389 617
(+5) (-14) (+34) (+4%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 41 0 0 41
(+30) (0) (0) (+273%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,992 3,140 6,844 13,976
(+489) (-120) (+979) (+11%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 501 706 266 1,473
(-353) (+2) (+236) (-7%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
(-1) (0) (0) (-100%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 1 9 10
(0) (-1) (+2) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 3 24 27
(0) (-12) (+12) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 420 250 140 810
(+47) (-56) (+41) (+5%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 1 0 0 1
(-38) (-5) (0) (-98%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 1,565 1,288 533 3,386
(+158) (+279) (+305) (+28%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 862 806 580 2,248
(-44) (-127) (+366) (+9%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 98 117 76 291
(-34) (+37) (+29) (+12%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 5
(-5) (+5) (0) (0%)
Table E-8 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario C (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario C
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 3,447 3,176 1,628 8,251
(-270) (+122) (+991) (+11%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 7,439 6,316 8,472 22,227
(+219) (+2) (+1,970) (+11%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-9 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario D (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario D
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 490 193 643 1,326
(+196) (-83) (+91) (+18%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 68 178 99 345
(+31) (-25) (-7) (0%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 29 318 214 561
(+29) (-36) (+7) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 469 417 256 1,142
(-127) (+101) (+75) (+4%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 656 230 278 1,164
(+145) (+52) (+5) (+21%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,761 1,321 2,871 5,953
(+206) (-56 (+91) (+5%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 374 486 1,453 2,313
(-4) (-3) (+54) (+2%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 136 100 367 603
(+16) (-17) (+12) (+2%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 41 0 0 41
(+30) (0) (0) (+273%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 4,025 3,243 6,193 13,461
(+522) (-17) (+328) (+7%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 321 505 1,002 1,828
(-533) (-199) (+972) (+15%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 305 427 404 1,136
(-68) (+121) (+305) (+46%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 47 2 0 49
(+8) (-3) (0) (11%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 495 1,546 1,901 3,942
(-912) (+537) (+1,673) (+49%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 343 851 1,421 2,615
(-563) (-82) (+1,207) (+27%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 73 95 198 366
(-59) (+15) (+151) (+41%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-9 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario D (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario D
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 1,585 3,426 4,968 9,979
(-2,132) (+372) (+4,331) (+35%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 5,610 6,669 11,161 23,440
(-1,610) (+355) (+4,659) (+17%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-10 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario E (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario E
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 475 186 684 1,345
(+181) (-90) (+132) (+20%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 48 196 110 354
(+11) (-7) (+4) (+2%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 3 300 259 562
(+3) (-54) (+52) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 445 438 269 1,152
(-151) (+122) (+88) (+5%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 723 245 324 1,292
(+212) (+67) (+51) (+34%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,733 1,217 3,178 6,128
(+178) (-110) (+398) (+8%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 373 476 1,521 2,370
(-5) (-13) (+122) (+5%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 126 103 386 615
(+6) (-14) (+31) (+4%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 41 0 0 41
(+30) (0) (0) (+273%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,968 3,161 6,743 13,872
(+465) (-99) (+878) (+10%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 448 590 574 1,612
(-406) (-114) (+544) (+2%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
(-1) (0) (0) (-100%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 410 286 212 908
(+37) (-20) (+113) (+17%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 6 0 0 6
(-33) (-5) (0) (-86%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 1,248 1,484 869 3,601
(-159) (+475) (+641) (+36%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 731 743 912 2,386
(-175) (-190) (+698) (+16%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 79 117 113 309
(-53) (+37) (+66) (+19%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 4 2 6
(-5) (+4) (+2) (20%)
Table E-10 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 2, Scenario E (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario E
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 2,922 3,224 2,719 8,865
(-795) (+170) (+2,082) (+20%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 6,890 6,385 9,462 22,737
(-330) (+71) (+2,960) (+13%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-11 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario A (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario A
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 491 235 588 1,314
(+197) (-41) (+36) (+17%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 92 155 92 339
(+55) (-48) (-14) (-2%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 63 301 197 561
(+63) (-53) (-10) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 479 412 246 1,137
(-117) (+96) (+65) (+4%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 614 233 251 1,098
(+103) (+55) (-22) (+14%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,750 1,317 2,769 5,836
(+195) (-10) (-11) (+3%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 369 507 1,413 2,289
(-9) (+18) (+14) (+1%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 134 102 355 591
(+14) (-15) (0) (0%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 33 0 0 33
(+22) (0) (0) (+200%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 4,026 3,262 5,923 13,211
(+523) (+2) (+58) (+5%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 333 464 1,115 1,912
(-521) (-240) (+1,085) (+20%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2
(+1) (0) (0) (+100%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 317 416 461 1,194
(-56) (+110) (+362) (+53%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 65 5 0 70
(+26) (0) (0) (+59%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 436 1,374 2,193 4,003
(-971) (+365) (+1,965) (+51%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 339 790 1,560 2,689
(-567) (-143) (+1,346) (+31%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 80 83 219 382
(-52) (+3) (+172) (+47%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-11 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario A (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario A
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 1,572 3,132 5,590 10,294
(-2,145) (+78) (+4,953) (+39%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 5,598 6,394 11,513 23,505
(-1,622) (+80) (+5,011) (+17%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-12 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario B (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario B
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 512 223 631 1,366
(+218) (-53) (+79) (+22%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 43 202 103 348
(+6) (-1) (-3) (+1%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 3 315 243 561
(+3) (-39) (+36) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 445 446 262 1,153
(-151) (+130) (+81) (+5%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 681 229 289 1,199
(+170) (+51) (+16) (+25%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,716 1,252 3,052 6,020
(+161) (-75) (+272) (+6%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 376 501 1,473 2,350
(-2) (+12) (+74) (+4%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 128 102 378 608
(+8) (-15) (+23) (+3%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 29 0 0 29
(+18) (0) (0) (+164%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,934 3,270 6,443 13,647
(+431) (+10) (+578) (+8%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 374 507 860 1,741
(-480) (-197) (+830) (+10%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 315 400 343 1,058
(-58) (+94) (+244) (+36%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 25 0 0 25
(-14) (-5) (0) (-43%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 694 1,580 1, 566 3,840
(-713) (+571) (+1,338) (+45%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 411 867 1,263 2,541
(-495) (-66) (+1,049) (+24%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 67 107 173 347
(-65) (+27) (+126) (+34%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-12 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario B (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario B
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 1,887 3,461 4,247 9,595
(-1,830) (+407) (+3,610) (+30%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 5,821 6,731 10,690 23,242
(-1,399) (+417) (+4,188) (+16%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-13 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario C (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario C
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 450 183 691 1,324
(+156) (-93) (+139) (+18%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 49 195 112 356
(+12) (-8) (+6) (+3%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 2 294 265 561
(+2) (-60) (+58) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 454 427 270 1,151
(-142) (+111) (+89) (+5%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 717 250 328 1,295
(+206) (+72) (+55) (+35%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,732 1,206 3,213 6,151
(+177) (-121) (+433) (+9%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 379 472 1,532 2,383
(+1) (-17) (+133) (+5%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 125 103 388 616
(+5) (-14) (+33) (+4%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 39 0 0 39
(+28) (0) (0) (+255%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,948 3,130 6,811 13,889
(+445) (-130) (+946) (+10%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 498 708 259 1,465
(-356) (+4) (+229) (-8%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
(-1) (0) (0) (-100%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 1 9 10
(0) (-1) (+2) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 3 24 27
(0) (-12) (+12) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 420 250 138 7808
(+47) (-56) (+39) (+4%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 1 0 0 1
(-38) (-5) (0) (-98%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 1,568 1,296 513 3,377
(+161) (+287) (+285) (+28%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 863 812 569 2,244
(-43) (-121) (+355) (+9%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 98 119 73 290
(-34) (+39) (+26) (+12%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 5
(-5) (+5) (0) (0%)
Table E-13 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario C (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario C
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 3,448 3,194 1,585 8,227
(-269) (+140) (+948) (+11%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 7,396 6,324 8,396 22,116
(+176) (+10) (+1,894) (+10%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-14 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario D (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario D
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 519 241 594 1,354
(+225) (-35) (+42) (+21%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 60 187 97 344
(+23) (-16) (-9) (-1%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 25 319 217 561
(+25) (-35) (+10) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 460 426 258 1,144
(-136) (+110) (+77) (+5%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 647 226 266 1,139
(+136) (+48) (-7) (+18%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,745 1,263 2,911 5,919
(+190) (-64) (+131) (+5%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 376 497 1,441 2,314
(-2) (+8) (+42) (+2%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 134 98 368 600
(+14) (-19) (+13) (+1%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 29 0 0 29
(+18) (0) (0) (+164%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,996 3,257 6,164 13,417
(+493) (-3) (+299) (+6%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 327 484 1,045 1,856
(-527) (-220) (+1,015) (+17%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 313 423 426 1,162
(-60) (+117) (+327) (+49%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 53 3 0 56
(+14) (-2) (0) (+27%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 444 1,484 2,041 3,969
(-963) (+475) (+1,813) (+50%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 340 826 1,477 2,643
(-566) (-107) (+1,263) (+29%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 74 90 207 371
(-58) (+10) (+160) (+43%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5
(-5) (0) (+5) (0%)
Table E-14 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario D (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario D
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 1,552 3,310 5,238 10,100
(-2,165) (+256) (4,601) (+36%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 5,548 6,567 11,402 23,517
(-1,672) (+253) (+4,900) (+17%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
Table E-15 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario E (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario E
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Ault Field
Agriculture 294 276 552 1,122 503 214 653 1,370
(+209) (-62) (+101) (+22%)
Commercial 37 203 106 346 43 198 111 352
(+6) (-5) (+5) (+2%)
Federal3 1 0 12 13 1 0 12 13
(0) (0) (0) (0%)
Industrial 0 354 207 561 1 297 264 562
(+1) (-57) (+57) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 596 316 181 1,093 434 454 267 1,155
(-162) (+138) (+86) (+6%)
Parks 511 178 273 962 704 232 308 1,244
(+193) (+54) (+35) (+29%)
Residential4 1,555 1,327 2,780 5,662 1,734 1,218 3,162 6,114
(+179) (-109) (+382) (+8%)
Rural5 378 489 1,399 2,266 365 501 1,506 2,372
(-13) (+12) (+107) (+5%)
Transportation6 120 117 355 592 127 102 384 613
(+7) (-15) (+29) (+4%)
Other7 11 0 0 11 29 0 0 29
(+18) (0) (0) (+164%)
Subtotal 3,503 3,260 5,865 12,628 3,941 3,216 6,667 13,824
(+438) (-44) (+802) (+9%)
OLF Coupeville
Agriculture 854 704 30 1,588 449 593 563 1,605
(-405) (-111) (+533) (+1%)
Commercial 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
(-1) (0) (0) (-100%)
Federal3 0 2 7 9 0 0 10 10
(0) (-2) (+3) (+11%)
Industrial 0 15 12 27 0 0 27 27
(0) (-15) (+15) (0%)
Open Space/Forest 373 306 99 778 410 281 215 906
(+37) (-25) (+116) (+16%)
Parks 39 5 0 44 6 0 0 6
(-33) (-5) (0) (-86%)
Residential4 1,407 1,009 228 2,644 1,247 1,480 872 3,599
(-160) (+471) (+644) (+36%)
Rural5 906 933 214 2,053 732 739 910 2,381
(-174) (-194) (+696) (+16%)
Transportation6 132 80 47 259 79 116 113 308
(-53) (+36) (+66) (+19%)
Other7 5 0 0 5 0 3 2 5
(-5) (+3) (+2) (0%)
Table E-15 Land Use Acreage (+/-)1 within the DNL Contours2 for NAS Whidbey Island Complex,
Alternative 3, Scenario E (High-tempo FCLP Year)
No Action Alternative (NAA) Scenario E
(dB DNL) (dB DNL)
Total (% change
Land Use 65-69 70-74 >75 Total 65-69 70-74 >75 from NAA)
Subtotal 3,717 3,054 637 7,124 2,923 3,212 2,712 8,847
(-794) (+158) (+2,075) (+19%)
TOTAL8 7,220 6,314 6,502 20,036 6,864 6,428 9,379 22,671
(+356) (+114) (+2,877) (+13%)
Notes:
1
The difference between the No Action Alternative and Action Alternative 1 is noted in parentheses.
2
All five scenarios, A through E, are outlined in Section 2.3.3, where the split represents the percent of FCLPs conducted at
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville, respectively (i.e., 20/80 FCLP split = 20 percent of FCLPs at Ault Field and 80 percent of FCLPs
at OLF Coupeville).
3
“Federal” land use includes federally zoned land. “Federal” does not include the installation boundary.
4
“Residential“ includes areas zoned as residential, as well as higher density areas zoned as “Rural” and having parcel
properties that have use codes 11 (Household, single-family units), 111 (single section), 112 (double section), 113 (triple
section), 114 (quad or greater), 12 (Household, 2-4 units), 13 (Household, multiunit 5 or more), 14 (residential
condominiums), 15 (mobile home parks or courts), and 18 (all other residential not elsewhere coded).
5
“Rural” is low density, which includes a variety of living (i.e., homes) and working uses to provide for a rural lifestyle. In
order to further delineate land categorized as “Rural,” parcel property-use codes were examined. Per Island County Zoning
Code, the lot/density requirements in “Rural” zoned areas are as follows: Minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. Base
density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres; lot size averaging may be permitted for subdivisions or short
subdivisions that are ten (10) acres or larger in size, provided that no lot may be less than two and one-half (2½) acres in
size; no more than three (3) lots may be created that are less than five (5) acres in size; and the average base density for
the subdivision or short subdivision is not less than one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres.
6
The transportation land use category includes gaps in land use data that appeared to be roads; however, this
transportation category does not cover all streets within the counties/municipalities. This layer was created in order to
minimize data gaps within the land use data.
7
“Other” includes lands with no zoning attributes assigned to them. Land use data do not include open water, offshore
water, shoals, tidal wetlands, or uninhabited islands within San Juan County.
8
Acreages have been rounded to ensure totals sum.

Key:
dB = decibel
DNL = day-night average sound level
FCLP = field carrier landing practice
NAS = Naval Air Station
OLF = outlying landing field
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Appendix F
Environmental Justice Data, High-tempo FCLP Year

F-1

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

F-2

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Appendix F provides tables with detailed data used as part of the environmental justice analysis for the
high-tempo Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) year. These tables mirror the tables provided in Section
4.11 that provide data for the average year. Table F-1 shows the minority and low-income populations in
the census block groups affected by the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) contours under the high-
tempo FCLP year. Table F-2 shows the environmental justice communities affected by the DNL contours
under the high-tempo FCLP year for the No Action Alternative. Tables F-3 through F-17 present
estimates of the affected minority and low-income populations under each alternative and scenario and
compare these estimates to the No Action Alternative.
Table F-1 Minority and Low-Income Populations in Census Block Groups Underlying
Ault Field and OLF Coupevile DNL Contours1 for All Alternatives and Scenarios, High-
Tempo FCLP Year
Percent Percent
Population Population
Total Total below Poverty
Census Block Group Population2 Minority3 Level4
Island County – Community of Comparison 78,506 16.9% 8.0%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9701 1,102 18.7% 14.1%
Block Group 2, Census Tract 9701 1,502 13.6% 14.1%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9702 1,633 35.2%5 23.4%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9703 791 24.3% 4.4%
Block Group 2, Census Tract 9703 1,203 15.7% 4.4%
Block Group 3, Census Tract 9703 1,044 13.5% 4.4%
Block Group 4, Census Tract 9703 1,951 11.6% 4.4%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9704 951 39.3% 8.6%
Block Group 2, Census Tract 9704 2,256 31.9% 8.6%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9706.01 1,299 41.3% 11.2%
Block Group 2, Census Tract 9706.01 981 30.8% 11.2%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9707 23.5% 28.2% 20.1%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9708 1,484 25.9% 8.7%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9710 1,470 12.7% 6.3%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9711 2,019 14.7% 2.9%
Block Group 2, Census Tract 9711 1,270 7.5% 2.9%
Block Group 3, Census Tract 9713 1,762 5.9% 6.8%
Skagit County – Community of Comparison 116,901 23.3% 11.7%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9403 1,174 7.4% 6.2%
Block Group 1, Census Tract 9408 2,278 31.7% 18.2%
Block Group 2, Census Tract 9521 658 13.2% 9.1%
Block Group 3, Census Tract 9527 906 12.9% 7.3%

F-3

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-1 Minority and Low-Income Populations in Census Block Groups Underlying
Ault Field and OLF Coupevile DNL Contours1 for All Alternatives and Scenarios, High-
Tempo FCLP Year
Percent Percent
Population Population
Total Total below Poverty
Census Block Group Population2 Minority3 Level4
Sources: USCB 2012c; 2012f, n.d.[f].

Notes:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
Total population for each affected census block group is the total 2010 population for the entire census
block group as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. These figures may be greater than the total number
of residents affected by the DNL contours because in many instances only a portion of the census block
group falls under the DNL contours.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently,
census block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority
populations that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain
percentages of low-income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells
indicate where environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated
thresholds. The following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
calculate whether these statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2

F-4

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-2 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under the No Action Alternative, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9%5 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population6
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].

Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis.
Populations on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the
Seaplane Base, and OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for
Island County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this
growth factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section
4.11.2.2 describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island
County is utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify
as Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently,
census block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority
populations that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain
percentages of low-income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells
indicate where environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated
thresholds. The following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
calculate whether these statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-5

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-3 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex under
Alternative 1, Scenario A, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 1A
65-70 DNL 4,303 1,096 25.5%5 350 8.1%
70-75 DNL 2,844 608 21.4% 195 6.9%
75+ DNL 5,602 924 16.5% 393 7.0%
Total Affected 12,749 2,628 20.6% 938 7.4%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 75 45 - 24 -
70-75 DNL -619 -247 - -57 -
75+ DNL 1,489 156 - 42 -
Total Population 945 -46 0.0%7 9 1.0%
Change from No Action
Alternative6

F-6

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-3 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex under
Alternative 1, Scenario A, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB, 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences are
located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations on
military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and OLF
Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes between
2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island County
(Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth factor was
also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2 describes the
methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is utilized as the
community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as individuals
who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as Hispanic or
Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The following
formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these statistics
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100.
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.
7
The absolute number of minority residents declined compared to the number under the No Action
Alternative.

F-7

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-4 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whibdey Island Complex
under Alternative 1, Scenario B, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 1B
65-70 DNL 4,159 1,084 26.1%5 345 8.3%
70-75 DNL 3,587 830 23.1% 248 6.9%
75+ DNL 5,420 934 17.2% 402 7.4%
Total Affected 13,166 2,848 21.6% 995 7.6%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL -69 33 - 19 -
70-75 DNL 124 -25 - -4 -
75+ DNL 1,307 166 - 51 -
Total Population 1,362 174 12.8% 66 4.8%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-8

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-4 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whibdey Island Complex
under Alternative 1, Scenario B, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB, 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].

Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island
County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth
factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2
describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is
utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-9

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-5 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 1, Scenario C, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 1C
65-70 DNL 4,893 1,222 25.0%5 376 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,604 845 23.4% 249 6.9%
75+ DNL 4,764 887 18.6% 399 8.4%
Total Affected 13,261 2,954 22.3% 1,024 7.7%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 665 171 - 50 -
70-75 DNL 141 -10 - -3 -
75+ DNL 651 119 - 48 -
Total Population 1,457 280 19.2% 95 6.5%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-10

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-5 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 1, Scenario C, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].

Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island
County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth
factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2
describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is
utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-11

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-6 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex under
Alternative 1, Scenario D, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 1D
65-70 DNL 4,291 1,111 25.9%5 354 8.2%
70-75 DNL 3,171 715 22.5% 221 7.0%
75+ DNL 5,660 946 16.7% 403 7.1%
Total Affected 13,122 2,772 21.1% 978 7.5%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 63 60 - 28 -
70-75 DNL -292 -140 - -31 -
75+ DNL 1,547 178 - 52 -
Total Population 1,318 98 7.4% 49 3.7%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-12

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-6 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex under
Alternative 1, Scenario D, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences are
located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations on
military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and OLF
Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes between
2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island County
(Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth factor was
also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2 describes the
methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is utilized as the
community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as individuals
who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as Hispanic or
Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The following
formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these statistics
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-13

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-7 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 1, Scenario E, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 1E
65-70 DNL 4,640 1,174 25.3%5 364 7.8%
70-75 DNL 3,593 837 23.3% 248 6.9%
75+ DNL 5,029 909 18.1% 403 8.0%
Total Affected 13,262 2,920 22.0% 1,015 7.7%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 412 123 - 38 -
70-75 DNL 130 -18 - -4 -
75+ DNL 916 141 - 52 -
Total Population 1,458 246 16.9% 86 5.9%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-14

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-7 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 1, Scenario E, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island
County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth
factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2
describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is
utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-15

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-8 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex under
Alternative 2, Scenario A, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 2A
65-70 DNL 4,300 1,098 25.5%5 351 8.2%
70-75 DNL 2,879 600 20.8% 193 6.7%
75+ DNL 5,454 904 16.6% 386 7.1%
Total Affected 12,633 2,602 20.6% 930 7.4%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 72 47 - 25 -
70-75 DNL -584 -255 - -59 -
75+ DNL 1,341 136 - 35 -
Total Population 829 -72 0.0%7 1 0.1%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-16

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-8 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex under
Alternative 2, Scenario A, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences are
located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations on
military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and OLF
Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes between
2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island County
(Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth factor was
also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2 describes the
methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is utilized as the
community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as individuals
who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as Hispanic or
Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations that
are “meaningfully greater” than those within Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than (or equal to) those within Island County. These shaded cells
indicate where environmental justice communities have been identified based on the indicated thresholds.
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The following
formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these statistics
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.
7
The absolute number of minority residents declined compared to the No Action Alternative.

F-17

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-9 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 2, Scenario B, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 2B
65-70 DNL 4,222 1,088 25.8%5 345 8.2%
70-75 DNL 3,551 822 23.1% 246 6.9%
75+ DNL 5,310 921 17.3% 398 7.5%
Total Affected 13,083 2,831 21.6% 989 7.6%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL -6 37 - 19 -
70-75 DNL 88 -33 - -6 -
75+ DNL 1,197 153 - 47 -
Total Population 1,279 157 12.3% 60 4.7%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-18

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-9 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 2, Scenario B, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island
County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth
factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2
describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is
utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-19

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-10 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 2, Scenario C, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 2C
65-70 DNL 4,793 1,183 24.7%5 366 7.6%
70-75 DNL 3,559 829 23.3% 246 6.9%
75+ DNL 4,698 866 18.4% 391 8.3%
Total Affected 13,050 2,878 22.1% 1,003 7.7%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 565 132 - 40 -
70-75 DNL 96 -26 - -6 -
75+ DNL 585 98 - 40 -
Total Population 1,246 204 16.4% 74 5.9%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-20

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-10 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 2, Scenario C, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island
County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth
factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2
describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is
utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-21

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-11 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 2, Scenario D, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 2D
65-70 DNL 4,280 1,105 25.8%5 352 8.2%
70-75 DNL 3,231 713 22.1% 221 6.8%
75+ DNL 5,460 916 16.8% 393 7.2%
Total Affected 12,971 2,734 21.1% 966 7.4%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 52 54 - 26 -
70-75 DNL -232 -142 - -31 -
75+ DNL 1,347 148 - 42 -
Total Population 1,167 60 5.1% 37 3.2%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-22

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-11 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 2, Scenario D, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences are
located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations on
military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and OLF
Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes between
2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island County
(Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth factor was
also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2 describes the
methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is utilized as the
community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as individuals
who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as Hispanic or
Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-23

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-12 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 2, Scenario E, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 2E
65-70 DNL 4,546 1,140 25.1%5 356 7.8%
70-75 DNL 3,538 818 23.1% 244 6.9%
75+ DNL 4,982 893 17.9% 396 7.9%
Total Affected 13,066 2,851 21.8% 996 7.6%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 318 89 - 30 -
70-75 DNL 75 -37 - -8 -
75+ DNL 869 125 - 45 -
Total Population 1,262 177 14.0% 67 5.3%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-24

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-12 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 2, Scenario E, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for
Island County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this
growth factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section
4.11.2.2 describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island
County is utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently,
census block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority
populations that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain
percentages of low-income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells
indicate where environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated
thresholds. The following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
calculate whether these statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-25

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-13 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario A, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 3A
65-70 DNL 4,283 1,092 25.5%5 348 8.1%
70-75 DNL 2,816 593 21.1% 191 6.8%
75+ DNL 5,531 913 16.5% 389 7.0%
Total Affected 12,630 2,598 20.6% 928 7.3%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
-165-70 DNL 55 41 - 22 -
70-75 DNL -647 -262 - -61 -
75+ DNL 1,418 145 - 38 -
Population Change 826 -76 0.0%7 -1 0.0%7
from No Action
Alternative6

F-26

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-13 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario A, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].

Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island
County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth
factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2
describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is
utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.
7
The absolute number of minority residents and the absolute number of low-income residents declined
compared to the No Action Alternative.

F-27

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-14 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario B, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 3B
65-70 DNL 4,125 1,069 25.9%5 341 8.3%
70-75 DNL 3,541 817 23.1% 244 6.9%
75+ DNL 5,396 928 17.2% 399 7.4%
Total Affected 13,062 2,814 21.5% 984 7.5%
Population
Net Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL -103 18 - 15 -
70-75 DNL 78 -38 - -8 -
75+ DNL 1,283 160 - 48 -
Total Population 1,258 140 11.1% 55 4.4%
Change from No Action
Alternative6

F-28

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-14 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario B, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences are
located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations on
military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and OLF
Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes between
2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island County
(Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth factor was
also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2 describes the
methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is utilized as the
community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as individuals
who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as Hispanic or
Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.
.

F-29

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-15 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario C, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 3C
65-70 DNL 4,767 1,174 24.6%5 363 7.6%
70-75 DNL 3,544 824 23.3% 244 6.9%
75+ DNL 4,671 861 18.4% 389 8.3%
Total Affected 12,982 2,859 22.0% 996 7.7%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 539 123 - 37 -
70-75 DNL 81 -31 - -8 -
75+ DNL 558 93 - 38 -
Total Population 1,178 185 15.7% 67 5.7%
Change from No
Action Alternative6

F-30

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-15 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario C, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes
between 2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island
County (Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth
factor was also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2
describes the methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is
utilized as the community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian
or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as
individuals who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as
Hispanic or Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-31

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-16 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario D, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 3D
65-70 DNL 4,209 1,091 25.9%5 348 8.3%
70-75 DNL 3,184 714 22.4% 222 7.0%
75+ DNL 5,579 933 16.7% 395 7.1%
Total Affected 12,972 2,738 21.1% 965 7.4%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL -19 40 - 22 -
70-75 DNL -279 -141 - -30 -
75+ DNL 1,466 165 - 44 -
Total Population 1,168 64 5.5% 36 3.1%
Change from No Action
Alternative6

F-32

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-16 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario D, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Low-
Affected Total Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences are
located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations on
military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and OLF
Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes between
2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island County
(Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth factor was
also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2 describes the
methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is utilized as the
community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as individuals
who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as Hispanic or
Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-33

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-17 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario E, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Total Low-
Affected Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Community of Comparison (Island County) 16.9% 8.0%
No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 4,228 1,051 24.9% 326 7.7%
70-75 DNL 3,463 855 24.7% 252 7.3%
75+ DNL 4,113 768 18.7% 351 8.5%
Total Affected 11,804 2,674 22.7% 929 7.9%
Population
Alternative 3E
65-70 DNL 4,536 1,146 25.3%5 357 7.9%
70-75 DNL 3,590 834 23.2% 249 6.9%
75+ DNL 4,985 899 18.0% 394 7.9%
Total Affected 13,111 2,879 22.0% 1,000 7.6%
Population
Population Change from No Action Alternative
65-70 DNL 308 95 - 31 -
70-75 DNL 127 -21 - -3 -
75+ DNL 872 131 - 43 -
Total Population 1,307 205 15.7% 71 5.4%
Change from No Action
Alternative6

F-34

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table F-17 Environmental Justice Populations at the NAS Whidbey Island Complex
under Alternative 3, Scenario E, High-Tempo FCLP Year
Total Total Total Low-
Affected Minority Percent Income Percent Low
DNL Contours1 Population2 Population3 Minority Population4 Income
Sources: USCB 2012c, 2012f, n.d.[f].
Note:
1
DNL contours extend into Jefferson and San Juan Counties. However, because no permanent residences
are located within these DNL contours, these counties have been excluded from the analysis. Populations
on military properties with in the DNL contours (NAS Whidbey Island [Ault Field], the Seaplane Base, and
OLF Coupeville) have also been excluded from the analysis.
2
All population estimates for areas under the DNL contours utilized 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data. A 7.1-
percent growth factor was applied to the 2010 census statistics to account for population changes between
2010 and 2020 based on medium forecasted population projections during that period for Island County
(Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2017). To simplify the analysis, this growth factor was
also used for areas of Skagit County that fall under the 65+ dB DNL contours. Section 4.11.2.2 describes the
methodology utilized in the analysis in greater detail and also explains why Island County is utilized as the
community of comparison throughout the analysis.
3
Minority is defined as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Black or African American, as well as individuals
who self-identify as of Hispanic or Latino origin who are White. Individuals who self-identify as Hispanic or
Latino from another race are already included in the analysis.
4
The analysis relied on poverty data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
because the U.S. Census Bureau no longer reports poverty data in the decennial census. The American
Community Survey does not estimate data at the census block group level; therefore, the percent of the
population below the poverty level is displayed in this table at the census tract level. Consequently, census
block groups within the same census tract will report the same value.
5
The grey-shaded cells indicate the alternatives/scenarios that contain percentages of minority populations
that are “meaningfully greater” than those in Island County as a whole or that contain percentages of low-
income populations that are greater than those in Island County. These shaded cells indicate where
environmental justice communities have been identified based upon the indicated thresholds. The
following formula (the percent difference between two percentages) was used to calculate whether these
|𝑉𝑉1 −𝑉𝑉2 |
statistics differed by more than 15 percent: (𝑉𝑉1 +𝑉𝑉2 ) X 100
2
6
Due to rounding, some totals may not sum.

F-35

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

F-36

Appendix F
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Appendix G
Civilian Airfield Analysis

G-1

Appendix G
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

G-2

Appendix G
PACNORWEST FCLP SCREENING CONSIDERATIONS

Assumptions. The attached matrix screens paved public use civil airports to potentially support
EA-18G Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP). Since none of the airports have the requisite
equipment to support FCLP, such as IFLOLS or MOVLAS, the equipment cost is not taken into
consideration and is assumed to be approximately the same for all airfields; at least $2M.
Additionally, firefighting and aircraft rescue capabilities are not considered since there is no
formal requirement for this capability for military operations at civil airports. However, if a
civilian airport was to support EA-18G FCLP, Commander, Naval Air Force Pacific (CNAP)
may not be willing to accept the increased risk of operating without fire and rescue capability on
the field.

Criteria. Each column is explained in more detail below:

1. Distance from Ault Field. The 50 nm transit distance is based on CNAP analysis
provided as part of the revalidation of the 2003 EA-18G requirements letter. It is based
on the ability of the EA-18G to transit to the FCLP location, conduct a full set of FCLP
(8 landings) and transit back to Ault Field with acceptable fuel reserves without refueling.
The distances listed in the matrix are simple straight line distances. Actual transit
distances could be considerably farther depending on airspace complexity. Airports out
to approximately 75 nm are included in the matrix to ensure the analysis doesn’t miss an
airport that meets all other criterion but is beyond 50 nm.
2. Field Elevation. The maximum field elevation of 1000 ft. above ground level (agl) is
intended to duplicate the atmospheric conditions at sea level necessary to simulate carrier
landings. It is a long-established standard for carrier based aircraft and is delineated in
numerous Navy policy documents and manuals, including the Naval Aviation Enterprise
(NAE) Global Shore Infrastructure Plan (GSIP) as well as, FCLP NATOPS manuals, and
numerous home basing NEPA documents. All airports within 50 nm of Ault Field meet
this requirement.
3. Runway Length. The minimum runway length considered for this analysis was 5,000 ft.
OLF Coupeville’s runway length is 5,400 ft. and is the shortest FCLP runway in the
Navy. 5,000 ft. was selected as the screening criteria to capture runways that have the
bare minimum length necessary to support EA-18G FCLPs without expansion while
considering an acceptable margin of safety for pilot training. However, it should be
noted that 5,000 ft. still assumes risk because an EA-18G may not be able to land on such
a short runway should there be an emergency. This risk is acceptable at OLF Coupeville
because NAS Whidbey Island is so close to the OLF. The farther any candidate FCLP
runway is from NAS Whidbey Island, however, the greater the risk that an EA-18G may
not be able to land if necessary on a short runway. Commander, Electronic Attack Wing
Standard Operating Procedures requires a minimum 6,000 ft. runway if an EA-18G will

Enclosure (2)
land at a civilian airfield. Use of a shorter runway for landing requires the Commander’s
approval. It should also be noted that Navy building criteria for class B runways
generally requires 8,000 foot runways for jet aircraft (see NAVFAC P-80). Class B
airfields are those designed for large and heavy aircraft, such as military tactical aircraft.
An EA-18G requires a Class B runway (see Table 3-1 of UFC 3-260-01).
4. Runway Width. The minimum runway width considered was 150 ft. This is based on the
runway width at NOLF Whitehouse near Jacksonville, FL where FA-18E/F/G
occasionally conducts FCLPs. However, OLF Coupeville’s runway width is 200 ft.,
which is the Navy’s minimum standard for a Class B runway per Table 3-2 of UFC 3-
260-01. Thus, operating at a runway width of 150 inherently assumes additional risk.
5. Distance to arresting gear. The maximum distance to a runway with arresting gear is 17
nm. This criterion is articulated in the Draft Shore Air Operations Manual NATOPS
produced by CNIC and represents an increase in risk over the long held standard of
having arresting gear at the FCLP field. Note that installation of arresting gear at a civil
airport would impact civil operations and likely require small civil aircraft to avoid that
portion of the runway with arresting gear. Therefore, it should not be assumed that
arresting gear can be installed at smaller civilian airfields even if funds were to be made
available.
6. Annual Airfield Operations. This criterion is intended to capture how busy the civil
airfield is and potentially identifies underutilized airports. It also is intended to provide
some indication of the potential impact EA-18G FCLPs would have on local civil
operations airfields. Busier airports could be significantly adversely affected because an
airfield would not be able to support any other flight operation during the conduct of
FCLP. As there is no defined maximum acceptable number of existing civil airport
operations, USFF staff relied on previous experience. Specifically, an east coast effort to
support E-2/C-2 FCLP operations considered two airports each having less than 6,000
annual flight operations.
7. Under lateral limits of Class B/C airspace. This criterion is derived NAE GSIP, and
previously established CNAF Growler siting criteria. Class B airspace represents the
most congested airspace within the United States and is found around major commercial
airports. Class C airspace is also congested and found around commercial airports
although the level of congestion is less than that of Class B. Class B airspace is
associated with only 37 airports in the U.S., with SEATAC being one.
8. Noise abatement/modified pattern. Published noise abatement procedures or a right-
hand-only pattern indicates that there are already adverse community impacts resulting
from airfield operations, and would therefore not be appropriate for FCLP of tactical jet
aircraft. Additionally, FCLPs must conduct a left-hand pattern. If that pattern is
restricted, then that airfield is not useable for FCLP. It should also be noted that existing
noise abatement procedures at small civilian airfields represent existing community
sensitivity to noise levels produced, as a general matter, by single engine propeller

Enclosure (2)
aircraft. Thus, this serves as an indicator that the use of that airfield by tactical jet
aircraft, which are exponentially louder, would likely receive a hostile response from the
community.
9. Runway cost. This column displays a generalized assessment as to the potential relative
cost that should be expected to expand existing runways to meet FCLP requirements.
This column uses a simple color code that is based on the percentage of pavement area
(length X width) that exists compared to the amount needed to meet the stated
requirement of 5,000 ft. Actual costs are not currently attainable as it would require
extensive study at that individual airfield to account for weight bearing capacity or
impediments to expansion such as roads, structures, land purchases, and wetlands. To
provide some context, recent runway extension proposals by civilian airfields were
reviewed to obtain a sense of the potential cost of a runway extension. A recent proposed
runway expansion at Rock County Airport in Wisconsin from 5,400 ft. to 7,300 ft. was
estimated to cost $15M. Similarly, Erie International Airport in Pennsylvania is
proposing to expand its 6,500 ft. runway by an additional 1,920 ft. at an estimated cost of
$19.5M. Perhaps one of the closet comparisons, Roseburg Regional Airport in Oregon,
which has a runway length of 4,602 ft., estimates that an extension of the runway by 900
feet would cost approximately $10M. The average cost of a runway expansion among
these examples is roughly $10,000 per foot, or $10M for 1,000 feet of runway. This only
accounts for runway length, not extending a runway’s width or weight bearing capacity.

Enclosure (2)
PACNORWEST FCLP Screening

Sort Name Geographic Characteristics Runways Operations


Distance Meet Field Meet RWY Meet Runway Meet Distance to Meet Annual Meet Under Meet Noise Meet Runway cost
from Ault Criteria Elevation Criteria Length Criteria Width Criteria Arresting Gear Criteria Airport Criteria Class B Criteria Abate/Mod Criteria (% pavement
Pattern present)
Field (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Operations (Y/N) or C (Y/N) (Y/N) Red - 0-25%
PASS Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria Orn - 26-75%
Overall 50 1,000 5,000 150 17 6000 No No Yel - 76-99%
No Anacortes 9 Yes 241 Yes 3,015 No 60 No 9 Yes 9,000 No No Yes No Yes
No Apex Airpark 42 Yes 525 Yes 2,500 No 28 No 33 No 21,000 No No Yes No Yes
No Arlington Muni 23 Yes 142 Yes 5,332 Yes 100 No 23 No 62,000 No No Yes Yes No
No Auburn Muni 64 No 63 Yes 3,400 No 75 No 15 Yes 162,000 No No Yes Yes No
No Bellingham Intl 27 Yes 170 Yes 6,701 Yes 150 Yes 27 No 62,000 No No Yes Yes No N/A
No Boeing Field 51 No 21 Yes 10,000 Yes 200 Yes 25 No 179,215 No Yes No Yes No N/A
No Bremerton National 52 No 444 Yes 6,000 Yes 150 Yes 24 No 66,000 No No Yes Yes No N/A
No Camano Island 11 Yes 145 Yes 1,750 No 24 No 11 Yes 1,300 Yes No Yes Yes No
No Darrington Muni 42 Yes 553 Yes 2,491 No 40 No 42 No 2,300 Yes No Yes Yes No
No Eisenberg (Oak Harbor) 6 Yes 193 Yes 3,265 No 25 No 6 Yes 17,500 No No Yes Yes No
No Fairchild Intl (Port Angeles) 37 Yes 291 Yes 6,347 Yes 150 Yes 37 No 56,500 No No Yes Yes No N/A
No Forks 74 No 299 Yes 2,400 No 75 No 74 No 13,500 No No Yes Yes No
No Firstair Field 39 Yes 50 Yes 2,087 No 34 No 39 No 18,300 No No Yes Yes No
No Friday Harbor 18 Yes 113 Yes 3,402 No 75 No 18 No 46,000 No No Yes Yes No
No Harvey Field 35 Yes 22 Yes 2,671 No 36 No 35 No 139,000 No No Yes Yes No
No Jefferson County 19 Yes 110 Yes 3,000 No 75 No 19 No 58,000 No No Yes Yes No
No Lopez Island 14 Yes 209 Yes 2,904 No 60 No 14 Yes 31,400 No No Yes Yes No
No Lynden 37 Yes 106 Yes 2,425 No 40 No 37 No 7,500 No No Yes No Yes
No Mears Field 37 Yes 267 Yes 2,609 No 60 No 37 No 5,000 Yes No Yes Yes No
No Orcas Island 24 Yes 35 Yes 2,901 No 60 No 24 No 41,600 No No Yes Yes No
No Pierce County 76 No 538 Yes 3,650 No 60 No 8 Yes 100,000 No No Yes Yes No
No Renton Muni 55 No 32 Yes 5,382 Yes 200 Yes 24 No 80,665 No Yes No No Yes N/A
No Sanderson Field 66 No 273 Yes 5,005 Yes 100 No 28 No 44,165 No No Yes Yes No
No SEATAC 56 No 433 Yes 11,901 Yes 150 Yes 20 No 340,180 No Yes No No Yes N/A
No Sekiu 66 No 355 Yes 2,997 No 50 No 66 No 504 Yes No Yes No Yes
No Sequim Valley 26 Yes 144 Yes 3,510 No 40 No 26 No 8,000 No No Yes No Yes
No Shady Acres 78 No 445 Yes 1,800 No 20 No 6 Yes 2,028 Yes No Yes Yes No
No Skagit Regional 11 Yes 145 Yes 5,478 Yes 100 No 11 Yes 61,700 No No Yes No Yes
No Snohomish Co 31 Yes 608 Yes 9,010 Yes 150 Yes 31 No 113,500 No No Yes Yes No N/A
No Spanaway 50 Yes 385 Yes 2,724 No 20 No 4 Yes 1,976 Yes No Yes Yes No
No Tacoma Narrows 65 No 295 Yes 5,002 Yes 100 No 9 Yes 53,290 No Yes No Yes No
No Whidbey Air Park 22 Yes 271 Yes 2,470 No 25 No 22 No 14,200 No No Yes No Yes
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Appendix H
Noise Mitigation

H-1

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

H-2

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... H-5
2 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT AND POTENTIAL NOISE MITIGATION................................................ H-5
2.1 Limiting Noise..................................................................................................................... H-6
2.1.1 Engine and Aircraft Performance ........................................................................... H-6
2.1.2 Design Solutions ..................................................................................................... H-6
2.1.3 Construction and Operation of Noise-Suppression Facilities (Hush House) .......... H-7
2.1.4 Ground Operations and Aircraft Maintenance....................................................... H-8
2.2 Land Use Planning and Management ................................................................................ H-8
2.2.1 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program ................................................... H-8
2.2.2 Land Use Zoning...................................................................................................... H-9
2.2.3 Encroachment Partnering Efforts ......................................................................... H-11
2.2.4 Insulation to Properties ........................................................................................ H-13
2.3 Noise Abatement Operational Procedures ...................................................................... H-13
2.3.1 Public Involvement ............................................................................................... H-14
2.3.2 Noise Abatement Best Practices........................................................................... H-14
2.3.3 Additional Oversight Measures ............................................................................ H-18
3 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... H-19

H-3

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

H-4

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

1 Introduction
This appendix provides an overview of the current noise-mitigation measures that are in place as well as
potential noise-mitigation measures that are being evaluated for potential future implementation at the
Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island complex. The Navy takes a proactive approach to noise
mitigation and addressing community concerns.
It is the Navy’s as well as NAS Whidbey Island policy to conduct required training and operational flights
with as minimal impact as practicable on surrounding communities. All aircrews using Ault Field,
Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville, Naval Weapons System Training Facility Boardman, and the
numerous northwest instrument and visual military training routes and military operations areas
throughout the Pacific Northwest are responsible for conducting their mission safely and complying with
published course rules, established noise-abatement procedures, and good common sense. Each aircrew
must be familiar with the noise profiles of its aircraft and is expected to minimize noise impacts without
compromising operational and safety requirements.
Military airfields serve a key role in the national defense. As such, Ault Field and OLF Coupeville are
available for use 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, to support military mission and operational
readiness needs of our nation. However, in recognizing that airfield operations are loud, the Navy
considers some voluntary operational measures on a case-by-case basis, so as to not interfere with the
national defense posture and operational readiness needs. If an operational need should arise, the Navy
will conduct surge operations and resume operations as necessary to meet national defense
requirements.
The NAS Whidbey Island complex has noise-abatement procedures for assigned and transient aircraft to
minimize aircraft noise. Airfield procedures used to minimize or abate noise for operations conducted at
the NAS Whidbey Island complex airfields include optimizing of flight tracks and runway usage,
restricting maintenance run-up hours, and other procedures as provided in the NAS Whidbey Island Air
Operations Manual NASWHIDBEYINST 3710.1AA. Additionally, aircrews are directed, to the maximum
extent practicable, to employ prudent airmanship techniques to reduce aircraft noise impacts and to
avoid sensitive areas except when safety dictates otherwise.
Noise sensitivity awareness is practiced at all levels of the chain of command and is discussed during
various meetings and forums, such as the daily airfield operations briefing, monthly Commanding
Officer’s Tenant Command meeting, Instrument Ground School Aircrew refresher training, monthly
Aviation Safety Council meetings, and monthly noise working group meetings.

2 Overview of Current and Potential Noise Mitigation


Careful consideration is required in attempting to harmonize both noise mitigation measures and
operational requirements because the environmental noise burden placed on the communities varies
greatly based on distance from Ault Field and OLF Coupeville and proximity to flight tracks to and from
those airfields. This balancing must account for the fact that changes in flight operations that attempt to
reduce aircraft noise on one area of the community often increase aircraft noise on others.
Elements of a balanced approach to noise minimization and mitigation are listed below (broadly, from
general to specific) under the following categories:

H-5

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

• Limiting Noise
• Land-use Planning and Management
• Noise Abatement Procedures

2.1 Limiting Noise


One of the most effective methods of noise mitigation is the limitation of noise generation at the
source. This is particularly relevant to aircraft noise because there are no barriers to decrease the
amplitude of the sound energy from aircraft flying overhead. Limiting aircraft noise at the source while
maintaining aircraft performance has historically presented technological challenges. As noted below,
while research into different noise technologies continues, there are presently no viable technologies
resulting in meaningful noise reductions without significant impacts on aircraft performance.

2.1.1 Engine and Aircraft Performance


Over the years, commercial aircraft have benefited from fuel economy and noise reduction technology
while supporting an affordable commercial air travel industry. However, for military aircraft, maximizing
aircraft performance has been critical in ensuring survivability in the modern battlefield against
competing military aircraft and other threats, such as anti-aircraft defense systems. Thus, the competing
interests of engine performance (i.e., thrust and speed), aircraft capabilities (i.e., maneuverability,
agility, and range), fuel economy, and air emission reductions have had a limiting effect on the ability to
design a quieter aircraft that meets the military mission requirements.

2.1.2 Design Solutions


The Navy is actively researching design solutions to reduce overall sound emissions from the engines of
the Growler, as well as other measures to make carrier landings safer and more automated, thereby
reducing the number of Field Carrier Landing Practices (FCLPs) required and the noise associated with
FCLP.

2.1.2.1 Engine Design Solutions


Over the years, the Navy has tested a number of engine design technologies to reduce jet engine noise,
including corrugated seals, water injection, air injection, and plasma actuators. These technologies
showed initial promise but were ultimately not selected because of unacceptable drawbacks with
respect to corrosion, weight, and the performance aspects of military aircraft. To date, the FA-18 and
EA-18G Program Office has spent over $5.6 million on its jet engine noise-reduction program and
continues to explore different technologies to reduce noise impacts from aircraft.
An engine design solution that has seemed the most promising is chevrons, which are specially designed
mechanical sound-reduction devices installed at the end of a jet-engine exhaust nozzle. Chevrons
necessitate a redesign of the jet engine. Testing confirmed that chevron technology has some positive
effect on noise output; however, it also demonstrated that redesign and additional testing are necessary
to fully assess any noise-reduction benefits and potential drawbacks. Therefore, while the Navy
continues to pursue research and testing of chevrons, their potential use as a noise-mitigation measure
remains uncertain.

H-6

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

2.1.2.2 Software Design Solutions


A promising software technology is Precision Landing Mode (PLM; also known as MAGIC CARPET 1), a
software change to the flight control system that makes landing the aircraft on the aircraft carrier
easier. PLM is a flight control system that automates some controls to assist pilots with landing on
aircraft carriers, making the flight deck operations aboard the carrier safer and more efficient. The
technology reduces the workload and training required for pilots to develop and maintain proficiency
for carrier landings. When implemented, this technology will result in a decrease of future FCLP training
requirements, resulting in fewer FCLPs at locations such as the NAS Whidbey Island complex. PLM
completed its first shore-based flight on the Super Hornet and the Growler on February 6, 2015, and was
successfully demonstrated on the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter during operational testing. The introduction
of PLM into the Growler fleet has begun and is scheduled to be complete by the end of 2020. This
technology will help serve to increase safety and has the benefit of mitigating noise.
As the Navy continues to explore the full benefits of this technology and as newer versions of it are
provided, the Navy expects that FCLP training requirements will be reduced.
While it was premature to consider reductions in FCLP requirements for the NAS Whidbey Island
complex in the Draft EIS, based upon successful testing and operational use of PLM technology, the Navy
has included more complete information in the Final EIS analysis. Operational factors, including
incorporation of PLM and a reduced number of pilots assigned to each squadron (two fewer pilots per
carrier squadron), have been factored into the analysis, and they reduce FCLP requirements at the NAS
Whidbey Island complex. Implementation of PLM is expected to decrease the FCLP requirements by 20
percent, leading to a reduction in the FCLP operations presented in the Draft EIS. Therefore, this
planning consideration has been applied to all the proposed alternative and scenario combinations and
the No Action Alternative (CY 21). The PLM technology is not specific to this Proposed Action and would
be implemented regardless of which alternative and scenario is chosen at NAS Whidbey Island.

2.1.3 Construction and Operation of Noise-Suppression Facilities (Hush House)


The Navy is considering the construction and operation of a noise suppression facility for engine
maintenance (also known as a “hush house”). Since funding is required and not guaranteed, the
construction and operation of a hush house is considered a potential future noise mitigation measure.
The purpose of a hush house is to reduce the sound levels associated with high-power jet-engine testing
following certain maintenance actions. The hush house would be capable of conducting in-frame engine
testing for the Growler inside the structure. Hush house noise reduction for a similar jet engine (F-16A
PW100) is approximately 10 to 20 A-weighted decibels (dBA). The “A” weighting is important because a
hush house primarily works by transferring the acoustic energy into frequencies below 100 Hertz (Hz).
Exact specifications of the hush house are unknown at this time, but are anticipated to be similar to
those of other hush houses currently operated by the Department of Defense (DoD) at other facilities.
The proposed hush house would be located 2,200 feet northwest of an existing outdoor high-power jet-
engine run-up location between Taxiways J and G. It would be oriented parallel to Taxiway J, with the
aircraft facing east. The orientation of the jet engine’s exhaust from the proposed hush house is
assumed to be consistent with the orientation of most hush houses where the exhaust is pointed

1
MAGIC CARPET: Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery
Precision Enabling Technologies
H-7

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

skyward. Noise reduction from the operation of a hush house would be limited to, and expected to
benefit, areas immediately adjacent to Ault Field.

2.1.4 Ground Operations and Aircraft Maintenance


Airfield ground operations and aircraft maintenance can also create a noise disturbance to the
surrounding community. The sources of ground noise include engine testing and run-up prior to taxiing,
noise from aircraft on apron and terminal stands, and aircraft maintenance facilities such as hangars and
engine test stands.
Methods of controlling the noise from these operations include the re-orientation of aircraft for run-up
procedures, relocating the aircraft away from noise-sensitive areas, or the use of suppressors and
barriers. The NAS Whidbey Island complex can also use time-based restrictions. Other ground
operations are controlled using space to separate loud operations from noise-sensitive areas and the
use of buildings and screens to shield the noise. The NAS Whidbey Island Air Operations Manual states
“high-power turn-ups should not be conducted prior to 1200 on Sundays or between the hours of 2200-
0730 for jets and 2400-0730 for turboprops. Authorization outside these hours approved by NASWI
Operations Officer for operational necessity.”

2.2 Land Use Planning and Management


Beyond those mentioned above, the Navy has other policies, programs, and procedures to assist local
communities in mitigating potential for existing and future noise impacts from aircraft activities at the
NAS Whidbey Island complex. Generally, minimizing impacts from noise generated by military airfield
activities requires comprehensive land use planning that provides adequate spatial separation between
noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Where noise problems occur around an existing airfield, or
where spatial separation cannot be used to affect a satisfactory solution, other land use management
options can be employed by the installation and the local community, such as those described below. In
addition, the Navy will support local government efforts to apply for U. S. Department of Defense Office
of Economic Adjustments programs, if local governments qualify for the offered programs.

2.2.1 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program


The DoD initiated the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) program in the 1970s to protect
the public’s health, safety, and welfare and to prevent encroachment from degrading the operational
capability of military air installations in meeting national security needs. The DoD recognizes that local
municipalities have the authority necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare through
implementation of compatible land use controls (i.e., zoning ordinances, building codes, subdivision
regulations, use permits, noise disclosure statements, and public land acquisition). Therefore, the AICUZ
program requires military installations to work collaboratively with federal, state, and local agencies and
community leaders to encourage compatible development of land adjacent to military airfields. To
implement the AICUZ program, the installation is required to:
• Prepare periodic AICUZ Updates to quantify aircraft noise zones and accident potential areas
and provide compatible land use recommendations to local municipalities.
• Develop a prospective long-term (5 to 10 years) analysis and develop a strategy to promote
compatible development in the community to address future changes.

H-8

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

• Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies and community leaders in order to maintain
public awareness of the AICUZ program.
• Promote encroachment partnering projects in order to achieve long-term encroachment
protection.
NAS Whidbey Island has an active AICUZ program that informs the public about its aircraft noise
environment, and recommends specific actions for the local jurisdictions with planning and zoning
authority that can enhance the health, safety, and welfare of those living near Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville (see Section 3.5.2.2). The current version of the AICUZ plan for the NAS Whidbey Island
complex was published in 2005, and it is considered a current noise-mitigation measure that describes
the Navy’s recommendation for compatible land use. The 2005 AICUZ Update for NAS Whidbey Island’s
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville was used by Island County to inform their current land-use management
practices and is the foundation for Island County’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances.
The Proposed Action would result in larger day-night average sound level (DNL) noise contours and
noise exposure, encompassing a larger land area. These changes to the DNL contours may result in
changes to land use recommendations. Therefore, the Navy will continue to work with Island County,
the City of Oak Harbor, the Town of Coupeville, and other communities as needed to plan for
compatible development, land use zoning, and building construction standards. Following a signed
Record of Decision for the Proposed Action, the Navy could pursue any of the following:
1. Prepare an AICUZ Update to address any increases of land area within the greater than 65 dB
DNL noise contours and, if applicable, the establishment of accident potential zones (APZs) for
the runways at OLF Coupeville.
2. Coordinate with state and local agencies on compatible land use and potential encroachment
concerns inside and outside of the DNL footprint (i.e., large-scale developments, transportation
projects that could encourage development, or tall structures such as cell towers that could
penetrate airfield imaginary surfaces 2).
3. Encourage municipalities to promote the highest and best use of land by updating local zoning
ordinances and building construction standards, especially for high-noise areas.
4. Encourage municipalities to adopt legislative initiatives to acquire interest in developed
properties in order to curb and mitigate encroachment near military installations and to protect
the public from noise exposure and accident potential.
5. Identify potential Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) projects and work to
acquire interest in undeveloped properties near the installation as a means to prevent
incompatible development or loss of habitat.
6. Support any comprehensives community planning efforts, such as a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS)
funded by the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment.

2.2.2 Land Use Zoning


1. The Washington Growth Management Act (WGMA) was adopted in 1990 because the
Washington State legislature found that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to

2 Imaginary surfaces are three-dimensional areas extending from the runway surface in all directions at
various angles and altitudes, which have certain associated height and obstruction criteria in order to
provide safe operating areas for aircraft utilizing the runway.
H-9

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

the environment, sustainable economic development, and the quality of life in Washington. The
WGMA requires state and local governments to manage Washington’s growth by identifying and
protecting critical areas and natural resource lands, designating urban growth areas, and
preparing comprehensive plans and implementing them through capital investments and
development regulations. The WGMA has been amended several times, including in 2005, when
provisions were added to address development around military installations. The 2005
amendment recognizes that military installations are of particular importance to the economic
health of Washington’s economy and quality of life. As such, the WGMA requires that county
and city comprehensive plans restrict development in the vicinity of military installations that is
incompatible with the installation’s ability to carry out its mission requirements.
Furthermore, to build on direction and processes for compatible land use planning as a result of
the WGMA, the Washington Department of Commerce released a civilian-military land use
study in December 2016 that provided recommendations to improve compatible land use
planning through partnerships, to clarify processes, to amend legislation, and to allocate funds
(for the resolution of land incompatibility issues, protection of habitat, and conservation of rural
areas) (The Spectrum Group, 2016).
2. Island County
Zoning is the primary land use control employed by Island County to control development on
non-federal land. The majority of parcels under county jurisdiction near Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville and within the overlay district are zoned in the following categories:
a. Rural, which permits one dwelling unit per 5 acres
b. Rural Agriculture, which permits one dwelling unit per 10 acres
c. Rural Forest, which permits one dwelling unit per 10 acres
d. Urban Growth Area (south of Ault Field), where density is limited to three dwelling units per
5 acres; in addition, within the Urban Growth Area, the City of Oak Harbor has identified
various future land uses, including industrial, planned industrial park, community
commercial, open space, and planned business park
e. Rural Residential areas west and southwest of OLF Coupeville, where permitted density
varies from one to three units per acre
Island County acknowledges the county’s association with the NAS Whidbey Island complex as
well as the impacts associated with aircraft operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. The plan
designates an “Airport and Aviation Safety Overlay,” which represents the high-noise areas as
well as areas under the APZs within Island County where special land use controls exist to
ensure public health, welfare, and safety. This overlay recommends that future land use
adjacent to Ault Field and OLF Coupeville be maintained as rural to encourage low-density
development within the air station’s DNL contours and APZs. In 2015, Island County updated its
Airport and Aircraft Operations Noise Disclosure Ordinance for property sold, rented, or leased
within the DNL contours around the NAS Whidbey Island complex. The disclosure ordinance
gives notice to prospective buyers, renters, or lessees that the property of interest is subject to
aircraft noise. Island County also enforces a separate Noise Level Reduction Ordinance, which
sets minimum standards for building construction within the DNL contours.
3. City of Oak Harbor
The City of Oak Harbor adopted Navy AICUZ noise contours (initially adopted in 1986 and

H-10

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

updated in 2005) to implement its Aviation Environs Overlay Zone through the city’s zoning
ordinance and other elements of the city’s municipal code. Land within the Aviation Environs
Overlay Zone is designated for low-density development. Existing land use and zoning
regulations in the Aviation Environs Overlay Zone are consistent with Navy recommendations
for land use compatibility within the APZs. The goals and policies in the city’s comprehensive
plan support adoption of codes for compatible development within the APZs.
4. Town of Coupeville
In October 1994, The Town of Coupeville adopted a comprehensive plan, which has since been
updated several times, most recently in July 2003. The plan recognizes the beneficial economic
relationship the town has with Ault Field and OLF Coupeville; however, it does not specifically
adopt or mention the Navy AICUZ noise contours.

2.2.3 Encroachment Partnering Efforts


In addition to the current AICUZ program and local planning and management guidelines, other noise-
mitigation options involving local partnerships are available. The Navy has encouraged Island County to
establish APZs around OLF Coupeville and to establish land use controls and building standards
appropriate for high noise areas. The establishment of Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve (of
which the Navy is one of the many landowners) as well as the Navy’s Readiness and Environmental
Protection Integration program, have helped to ensure compatible land use and development around
OLF Coupeville. Currently, NAS Whidbey Island has a REPI program in place. In addition, there are other
programs that are employed at other military bases, and the Navy may consider implementing similar
ones at NAS Whidbey Island in the future. The existing REPI program, as well as JLUSs, acquisition
programs, and roll-back incentives, are discussed below.
1. Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration
The DoD’s REPI program is a key tool for combating the airfield encroachment that can limit or
restrict military training, testing, and operations. The REPI program protects these military
missions by helping remove or avoid land-use conflicts near installations, and addressing
regulatory restrictions that inhibit military activities. The REPI program is administered by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
2. A key component of the REPI program is the use of buffer partnerships among the military
services, private conservation groups, and state and local governments, authorized by 10 U.S.C.,
Section 2684a. These partnerships share the cost of acquisition of easements or other interests
in land from willing sellers to preserve compatible land uses and natural habitats near military
facilities that help sustain critical military mission capabilities that are at-risk from external
encroachment pressures (DoD, 2017).
Through the REPI program, NAS Whidbey Island has been able to protect land uses under the
primary flight corridors at both airfields within the NAS Whidbey Island complex. As of January
2018, the Navy has invested $13.8 million in direct payments to landowners willing to maintain
compatible uses within the flight corridors. These easements protect local farms and
endangered species, as well as prevent incompatible uses within the most heavily used air
space. Through this program, NAS Whidbey Island has protected 1,505 acres of open space and
working farms and has preserved the rural character of Ebey’s Landing National Historical
Reserve (NAS Whidbey Island, 2018).

H-11

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

The Conservation Futures Funds program is operated by Island County to preserve and protect
valuable and sensitive lands for future generations. Island County Commissioners have the
ability to establish specific goals for awarding these local grant contributions. In the most recent
cycle, lands that also protected NAS Whidbey Island were awarded extra points as the local
priority for grant awards. NAS Whidbey Island has many partners in easement acquisitions
around the NAS Whidbey Island complex, and the Conservation Futures Funds are often the
source of local matching funds for the REPI easement acquisitions (NAS Whidbey Island, 2018).
3. Joint Land Use Study
Whereas an AICUZ study represents the Navy’s compatible land use recommendations to the
community, a JLUS is a community-developed document. The community-led JLUS encourages
collaborative planning and communication while encouraging compatible development near
military facilities as those communities adjoining military facilities experience growth. Additional
land use requirements for compatibility may result from JLUS agreements. The JLUS is produced
in partnership with the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment. A JLUS has not been initiated at the
NAS Whidbey Island complex, but one could be evaluated in the future as a potential noise-
mitigation measure, and it remains a tool for long-term consideration to address land use
compatibility surrounding Ault Field and OLF Coupeville.
4. Acquisition Programs and Roll-Back Incentives
As stated above, the civilian-military land use study provides recommendations to improve
compatible land use planning through partnerships, to clarify processes, to amend legislation,
and to allocate funds (for the resolution of land incompatibility issues, protection of habitat, and
conservation of rural areas) (The Spectrum Group, 2016). The state identifies the potential to
participate in acquisition programs and roll-back incentives in the future, although these
programs are not currently established around NAS Whidbey Island. These programs have been
implemented successfully in similar situations in other communities with military airfields. For
example, a partnership between the Commonwealth of Virginia, the City of Virginia Beach, and
the City of Chesapeake has successfully worked to decrease encroachment of incompatible
development around NAS Oceana and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) Fentress.
By combining land use controls, an acquisition program, and roll-back incentives, the City of
Virginia Beach has achieved a decrease in density and incompatible land uses surrounding NAS
Oceana. The Interfacility Traffic Area (ITA) Acquisition Plan has been similarly successful in the
City of Virginia Beach. The city’s acquisitions, coupled with its other holdings in the ITA, allow
the city to control the majority of land in the ITA to ensure it is used in a way that is compatible
with the mission of NAS Oceana. The city was able to further regulate this area through the
creation of the Rural AICUZ Area. The city has continued to incentivize businesses that bring
about conformity in APZ-1. The opportunity for development or re-development in APZ-1 is
lucrative for compatible users, stimulating the conversion of incompatible development
surrounding the air station. As every acquisition is evaluated, the city examines ways to merge
properties and “roll back” density or incompatibility. The city and state have committed
$109,150,000 to support the program.
The City of Chesapeake has also made its own commitments in order to protect NALF Fentress
and has documented significant legislative changes to prevent future encroachment. Planning
policy in the City of Chesapeake includes programs for acquisition of conservation easements.
An easement purchase is the purchase of a portion or all of the development rights on a

H-12

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

property. Compensation is provided to the landowner in exchange for restrictions placed on the
land's deed, in perpetuity. This encourages and promotes preservation of open space and
agricultural lands throughout the city by means that are voluntary rather than regulatory
(EDAW, Inc., et al, 2005).

2.2.4 Insulation to Properties


Domestic dwellings in high-noise zones that are affected by noise may need to have their sound
insulation improved to limit internal noise. The methods of improving sound insulation involve
improving insulation of windows and doors along with roof insulation and the attenuation of roof
ventilation and blocking of chimney flues. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has published a
helpful resource with information to incorporate sound-reduction measures in homes and private
property. This resource is entitled “Guidelines for Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft
Operations,” and it is available for download at:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/docum
entNumber/150_5000-9A.
Typically, city and county ordinances contain sound attenuation standards and land use controls. As
discussed in Section 1.2.2.2, Island County has enacted several ordinances for land use controls, noise
disclosure, and building construction standards.
While Congress enacted legislation for commercial airports to collect fees and to provide sound
insulation in neighborhood homes, schools, and buildings under the Part 150 Program (which is an FAA-
specific program), Congress has not given the military services the authority to install soundproofing in
homes, schools, and buildings that are not owned by the federal government. Therefore, NAS Whidbey
Island relies on a robust AICUZ program supported by the Installation Commanding Officer, Air
Operations Officer, Public Affairs Officer, and Community Planning and Liaison Officer. As a general
matter, the Navy does not have legal authority to expend federal funds on improvements to state, local,
or private property, and the Navy does not provide compensation for perceived loss of property values,
noise attenuation, and loss of business profitability.

2.3 Noise Abatement Operational Procedures


There are several ways to limit aircraft noise by adjusting how aircraft fly, called operational procedures,
while meeting the national defense mission. Operational procedures are changes in the way a specific
aircraft flies during a specific activity/operation, in accordance with FAA and Navy procedures.
Aircrews shall employ, to the maximum extent possible, prudent airmanship techniques to reduce
aircraft noise impacts and avoid noise-sensitive areas, except when being vectored by radar air traffic
control (ATC) or specifically directed by the control tower. Noise abatement requires knowledge of the
course rules and proper policies. High-power settings and erratic power control are the two variables
that have the greatest noise impact on the public. Both are directly controllable by the pilot. Aircrews
shall reduce power after safely airborne, avoid full power when possible, and apply power smoothly to
be consistent with professional aviation and noise abatement goals.

H-13

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

2.3.1 Public Involvement


NAS Whidbey Island’s Commanding Officer takes public concerns seriously and has processes in place
that allow members of the public to comment about and seek answers to questions about operations at
the installation and ensure those comments are reviewed by appropriate members in his command.
Public Outreach
The NAS Whidbey Island complex has an active public relations program to inform members of the
public of upcoming FCLP so that individuals have the ability to plan their personal activities. Information
on FCLP training schedules is shared every week with the media in the Puget Sound region and is posted
on the command’s Facebook page and webpage every week. Members of the public also have the
option to obtain these releases directly by signing up for them on the command’s webpage news
section. The command uses the same process to inform the public about other events that may increase
noise or have more impacts on specific areas for short periods of time.
Noise Complaint Hotline
NAS Whidbey Island complex investigates all noise complaints to determine compliance with FAA
regulations and base Standard Operating Procedures. These investigations ensure that both Navy and
public interests are protected and provide ongoing communication between the base and the local
communities. Persons with complaints or comments may call a recorded complaint hotline at (360) 257-
6665 or email at comments.NASWI@navy.mil. The Operations Duty Officer records the pertinent
information from these comments such as who called, in addition to the location, time, and description
of the noise-generating event. Callers may request a response or feedback and should provide their
name and contact information.
The Operations Duty Officer provides copies of the complaints to the Commanding Officer, Executive
Officer, Operations Officer, Community Planning and Liaison Officer, and Public Affairs Officer the
following day, and each complaint receives a thorough analysis and a recommendation to address the
issue. When necessary, the base officials may communicate directly with the complainant. The
Community Planning and Liaison Officer maintains a file of noise complaints for historical records and
trend analysis.

2.3.2 Noise Abatement Best Practices


The Navy understands aircraft operations can be loud and takes measures to ensure that all personnel
are mindful of aircraft noise impacts on the local community. The Navy has operated at the NAS
Whidbey Island complex for decades and as such, noise abatement best practices have changed over
time. Seasonal changes such as wind direction and hours of darkness will influence noise abatement
protocols throughout the year. Consistent with Navy procedures, care is taken to minimize aircraft noise
whenever possible by utilizing best practices, especially during acoustic-night operations (10:00 PM to
7:00 AM), when aircraft operations may be especially disturbing. A list of existing noise abatement
operational procedures by aircrews, ATC, and personnel stationed at NAS Whidbey Island is provided
below.
Aircrews
1. All aircrews using the NAS Whidbey Island complex are responsible for the safe conduct of their
mission while complying with published course rules, noise-abatement procedures, and good
common sense.

H-14

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

2. Aircrews attend annual training about airfield operating procedures and noise abatement
protocols.
3. During the pre-flight planning process, aircrews review current notices to airmen and the latest
weather reports. In addition, those aircrews that operate from NAS Whidbey Island are
knowledgeable in the current airfield noise-abatement procedures, approach and departure
procedures, and engine run-up policies. Those aircrews that do not regularly operate from NAS
Whidbey Island shall review these policies and procedures prior to flight.
4. Aircrews, to the maximum extent possible, employ prudent airmanship techniques to avoid all
published noise-sensitive areas by required minimum distances.
5. Aircrews ensure compliance with applicable altitude and airspeed requirements as defined in
the airfield operating procedures and their aircraft’s standard operating procedures for airfield
approaches and departures.
6. Aircrews observe all ATC instructions and airfield operating procedures. Flight operations shall
be executed in the safest manner possible and consistent with FAA and Navy procedures.
Air Traffic Control
1. ATC conducts an annual procedure review to recommend and implement new airfield noise
awareness programs.
2. ATC personnel provide direction to aircrews to ensure aircraft operate at the highest practical
altitude for an arriving aircraft and when climbing for a departing aircraft.
3. ATC personnel provide direction to aircrews to keep aircraft above 3,000 feet above ground
level (AGL) over noise-sensitive areas except as required for approved approach, departure, and
landing pattern procedures.
NAS Whidbey Island Air Operation Department
1. The Air Operations Department is responsible for conducting periodic aircrew training to
provide familiarization with course rules, appropriate noise abatement procedures, and the
importance of good community relations.
2. Noise complaints are investigated to determine whether the noise was from NAS Whidbey
Island aircraft operations and that aircrews followed the correct flight procedures.
3. A written airfield operating procedures manual is reviewed annually and updated to document
airfield safety, ground support, and noise abatement procedures in order to ensure safe and
efficient operations.
4. The Air Operations Department works with the NAS Whidbey Island Public Affairs Officer (PAO)
to announce changes to routine airfield operations and to advise the public of a potential
increase in operational tempo related to FCLP schedules and high-noise events.
5. Signs are posted in aircrew information centers and other conspicuous places (i.e., airfield entry
points) providing aircrews with reminders of noise abatement procedures for noise-sensitive
areas and the importance of good community relations.
6. Air Operations staff investigate optimal use and potential placement of visual and electronic
approach aids, blast fences, and ground run-up enclosures, which may aid noise-abatement
procedures at the airfield. NAS Whidbey Island has two blast fences/shields at the two Growler
high-power ground turn-up locations.

H-15

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

7. The Air Operations Officer considers and proposes noise-abatement procedures to support long-
term airfield operations as well as any temporary changes to airfield operations (i.e., airshow
practice, runway closure).
8. The Air Operations Officer continually reviews operational procedures to identify operational
changes to reduce noise within the constraints of safety, mission effectiveness, and economy.
9. The Air Operations Department provides weekly FCLP schedules for Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville to the NAS Whidbey Island Public Affairs Office for publication.
10. The Air Operations Officer participates in bi-annual community leadership forums to discuss
issues of mutual importance between the installation and the local communities.
11. The Air Operations Department monitors airfield operational schedules and attempts to
mitigate potential operational impacts during key academic testing periods in schools and
during large-scale community events such as the Penn Cove Mussel Fest.
NAS Whidbey Island Community Liaison Officer (CPLO)
1. The CPLO is responsible for management of the installation’s AICUZ program.
2. The CPLO makes presentations to and interfaces with local governments, planning and zoning
boards, community organizations, and citizens regarding the military mission and compatible
land use.
3. The CPLO maintains a file of noise complaints for historical record-keeping and trend analysis,
and responds to public concerns or inquiries on aircraft and airfield operations.
4. The CPLO coordinates with state and local agencies on compatible land use and potential
encroachment concerns inside and outside of the DNL footprint (i.e., large-scale developments,
transportation projects that could encourage development, or tall structures such as cell towers
that could penetrate airfield imaginary surfaces).
5. The CPLO supports municipalities’ efforts for compatible development (i.e., JLUS application,
REPI project endorsements, and other encroachment partnership efforts).
Takeoff and Landing Procedures
Controls on flight paths are sometimes applied where certain departures and arrivals occur over densely
populated areas. Noise Preferential Routes are often prescribed to avoid populated areas. For noise-
abatement purposes, the flight tracks are most useful for departures, where there is more flexibility on
routing. A rotation of operating runways may be used, with flight tracks distributed in a more or less
equal pattern, in an attempt to spread the noise in a geographically even manner across the surrounding
communities. In other cases, runways can sometimes be alternated preferentially to reduce operations
over more-populated areas. Runway rotation is limited by the wind speed and direction on a day-to-day
basis.
Aircraft produce their loudest noise during takeoff, when close to full power. If residential or other
sensitive areas are situated close to the airport, the aircraft will be relatively low when crossing above
them, and noise limitation measures may be needed. Several best practices can be applied to these
procedures. The NASWI Air Operations Manual (NASWHIDBEYINST 3710.1AA) specifically designates 16
specific noise-sensitive areas in the local flying area and has identified 20 noise-abatement procedures.
The Manual is an evolving document that can be, and is, modified over time as operations dictate and
needs evolve. These procedures are designed to improve communication, coordination, and flight
integrity and include:
H-16

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

• The maximum number of aircraft in the FCLP flight pattern is five. This is so the FCLP pattern
stays within the 5-mile radius of the airfield; thereby limiting noise impacts to the immediate
vicinity of the airfield, and allowing non-FCLP aircraft to operate concurrently.
• Make smooth power changes, if practicable. Large, abrupt changes in power result in large,
abrupt changes in sound level on the ground.
• Sunday Operations: From 7:30 AM to noon local time on Sundays, noise abatement procedures
require arrivals, except scheduled FCLP/Carrier Controlled Approach (CCA) aircraft and NAS
Whidbey Island drilling reservists, to make a full-stop landing. High-power run-ups should not be
conducted prior to noon on Sundays or between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:30 AM for jets
and midnight and 7:30 AM for turboprops. For specific operational necessity requirements,
high-power run-ups may be authorized outside these established hours.
• Arrival/departure corridors and flight patterns may be over noise-sensitive areas. Aircrews must,
to the maximum extent possible, employ prudent airmanship techniques to reduce aircraft
noise impacts and to avoid noise-sensitive areas except when being vectored by radar ATC or
specifically directed by the control tower.
• The depart and re-enter procedure will not normally be authorized before 7:00 AM or after
10:00 PM, unless during scheduled FCLPs or directed by the control tower for sequencing.
Multiple depart and re-enter maneuvers by the same aircraft are generally discouraged.
• Military jet aircraft on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) vectors to Runway 14 at Ault Field from the
west should, when possible, maintain smooth power settings and may delay landing gear
extension until crossing the NUW 300R (i.e., preparing to turn to the final approach course), to
the maximum extent practicable.
• Aircraft observed flying outside of the confines of the published patterns will be directed to
regain pattern integrity.
• After 6:00 PM, FCLPs are not permitted on Runway 32 at Ault Field unless specifically approved
by the NAS Whidbey Island Operations Officer.
• The NAS Whidbey Island complex has existing procedures to maximize the number of
departures from Runway 25 at Ault Field because aircraft depart from it to the west, over the
water.
• Runway Use Program (Ault Field)
a. Wind component and traffic permitting, morning departures prior to 8:00 AM must use
Runway 25 to maximize flight over open water.
b. Wind component and traffic permitting, evening arrivals after 10:00 PM must use Runway 7
to maximize flight over open water. In the interest of safety, consideration should be given
to use of a runway with approach and/or centerline lighting during instrument metrological
conditions.
c. Runway 7 is designated the primary landing runway when the wind is 5 knots or less with a
direct tailwind component no greater than 3 knots.
d. Runway 25 is designated the primary departure runway when the wind is 5 knots or less
with a direct tailwind component no greater than 3 knots and no operations are being
conducted on Runway 7. Aircraft must avoid flying over residential areas to the maximum
extent possible.

H-17

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

• The Operations Duty Officer has the primary responsibility for determining the OLF Coupeville
active runway. Surface winds as well as winds at pattern altitude are considered. The runway
most nearly aligned with the wind must be used when the wind speed is 5 knots or more. When
the wind speed is less than 5 knots, the ODO must ensure equitable runway distribution. The
Operations Officer must review runway use records/logs to assist in equitable runway selection.
NAS Whidbey Island goal for runway use is an equitable split contingent on winds.
• Departing Coupeville Runway 14 for Ault Field Runways 7 or 14: Low transitions prohibited.
The Navy must follow governing FAA rules and regulations when flying. Arrival and departure corridors
into and out of the NAS Whidbey Island complex have been developed in conjunction with the FAA over
decades, with an emphasis on flying over water and avoiding more densely populated areas. These
corridors are designed to de-conflict military, commercial, and general aviation routes. Additionally, as a
best practice, aircrews avoid noise-sensitive and wilderness areas by flying at altitudes of no less than
3,000 feet AGL, except when in compliance with an approved traffic or approach pattern, military
training route, or within Special Use Airspace.

2.3.3 Additional Oversight Measures


NAS Whidbey Island’s Commanding Officer takes public concerns seriously and has processes in place
for additional oversight measures. While Ault Field and OLF Coupeville are available for use 7 days per
week, 24 hours per day, prevailing wind directions as well as noise-abatement procedures will dictate
which runways are used. Additionally, to ensure transparency with community leaders and the public,
the following oversight measures are currently implemented or being considered for adoption, and
others may be added or changed as needs change over time:
• The NAS Whidbey Island complex will publish FCLP schedules for the upcoming week.
• FCLP training schedules will be managed by the NAS Whidbey Island complex Air Ops and VAQ
Wing to ensure operations remain consistent with conditions studied under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
• FCLP training that occurs after 11:59 PM at OLF Coupeville and after 1:00 AM at Ault Field must
have approval of the NAS Whidbey Island complex Operations Officer.
• During FCLPs, Landing Signal Officers (LSOs) shall maintain two-way communication with ATC
and all participating aircraft to ensure pattern integrity and proper sequencing of aircraft.
• High-power engine run-ups and takeoff abort practice require approvals from either NAS
Whidbey Island Air Ops or ATC.
• During FCLPs, the LSO will be present and monitor approaches to the airfield to ensure patterns
do not extend too far from the airfield.
• Nighttime operations, in particular those resulting from schedule delays occurring throughout
the day, require additional approvals.

H-18

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

3 References
DoD. (2017). About REPI. Accessed June 6, 2017: http://www.repi.mil/About-REPI/Frequently-Asked-
Questions/
EDAW, Inc.; Kerr Environmental Services Corp.; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.; and The Miles Agency.
(2005). Hampton Roads Joint Land Use Study. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.
Accessed at: http://www.hrpdcva.gov/departments/joint-land-use-studies/hampton-roads-jlus-
2005/
NAS Whidbey Island. (2018). Email from Jennifer S. Meyer, NAS Whidbey Island Community Planning
Liaison, January 11, 2018, to Sarah Stallings, Re: Growler Mitigations.
The Spectrum Group. (2016). Civilian-military land use study. Accessed June 14, 2018:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Commerce-Civilian-Military-Land-
Use-2016.pdf

H-19

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

H-20

Appendix H
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Appendix I
Community Health and Learning Review

I-1

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

I-2

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... I-5
2 ISLAND COUNTY HEALTH FACTORS ......................................................................................... I-5
3 LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TEST SCORES AND GRADUATION RATES ........................................... I-8
4 COMPARISON OF A HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AND REVIEW OF OTHER HEATH IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ......................................I-10
4.1 Comparison of the HIA and NEPA Processes with Respect to this EIS............................... I-11
4.2 Review of Industry Practices in the Preparation of HIAs ................................................... I-13
4.3 Agency Consultation .......................................................................................................... I-17
4.4 A Discussion of How Public Health Practitioners View Available Literature ..................... I-18
5 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................I-18

I-3

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

I-4

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

1 Introduction
This appendix documents the additional efforts and analyses that the Navy performed in order to
address public and agency comments regarding potential impacts to public health and student academic
performance. Since the public and agency comments requested the preparation of a Health Impact
Assessment (HIA), the Navy compared National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) regulatory
requirements for analyzing public health effects to non-regulatory guidance documents for the
preparation of a HIA; researched industry standards for airport-related HIAs prepared both in the United
States and internationally; consulted with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 10
and Washington State Department of Health (WADOH) on contents of a suggested HIA; and reviewed
260 published articles to update the Navy’s literature review. See Appendix A-8 for details on the
literature review process. Since there is no definitive science to show that a cause-and-effect
relationship exists between health effects and intermittent exposure to noise, the Navy analyzed public
health factors and student scholastic performance metrics to compare the overall health of Island
County residents with the overall health and scholastic performance of residents in the rest of the State
of Washington. In general, Island County is among the healthiest places to live, work, and play in
Washington, and Island County students in local school districts are more academically successful than
many of their peers across the State of Washington as a whole. All information included in this appendix
was reviewed and considered in the analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). Section 2 discusses the results of Island County’s 2015 Community Health Assessment. Section 3
compares Island County school district test scores and graduation rates to those of the remainder of the
State of Washington. Section 4 discusses additional efforts and analyses that the Navy took to address
the need to conduct a HIA.

2 Island County Health Factors


Based on public comments received on the Draft EIS, the public is concerned about potential noise
impacts to physical health, mental health, pregnancy, heart disease and cardiac arrest, cancer,
gastrointestinal functioning, brain damage, and health risks to children and the elderly. The data
included in Table 1 were chosen based on these concerns raised during the public comment period.
Table 1 includes health information from the Island County 2015 Community Health Assessment: Health
Indicator Summary Statistics, published in February 2016. This information was collected by the United
States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and WADOH through birth and death certificate
records, hospital reporting systems, cancer registries, annual telephone surveys, and biennial student
surveys. Data related to physical health, mental health, pregnancy and birth outcomes, total population
hospitalizations, child hospitalizations, chronic and non-communicable disease, and mortality were
included for Island County and Washington State.
The annual County Health Rankings measures vital health factors in nearly every county in America.
Health outcomes in the County Health Rankings represent how healthy a county is; the measure
includes two types of health outcomes: length of life and quality of life. Health factors in the County
Health Rankings represent what influences the health of a county; the measure includes four types of
health factors: health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and physical environment
(County Health Rankings, 2017). According to the 2017 County Health Rankings for Washington State,
Island County was ranked third in Washington State for health outcomes and fifth in Washington State
for health factors (University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2017). This is similar to the 2011

I-5

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

County Health Rankings for Washington State, in which Island County was ranked third for health
outcomes and fourth for health factors. According to the Island County 2012 Community Health
Assessment, “Island County is among the healthiest places to live, work and play in Washington” (Island
County, 2012). According to the 2015 Island County Community Health Survey, the most common health
challenges for respondents and their families are emergency preparedness; job opportunities and
training; time and/or knowledge to exercise; noise originating from aircraft, shooting ranges,
neighborhood dogs, and/or traffic; and access to exercise and recreation opportunities (Island County,
2015).
Island County was also identified as one of the healthiest areas in the country by U.S. News & World
Report. That publication’s “Healthiest Communities” ranking compares counties using 80 metrics across
10 health-related categories, including population health, equity, education, economy, housing, food
and nutrition, environment, public safety, community vitality, and infrastructure. Out of 2,974 counties
surveyed, Island County was ranked the 257th healthiest in the nation and the fifth healthiest in the
State of Washington. Island County was also listed in U.S. News & World Report’s “Healthiest
Communities Honor Roll,” which includes four top-performing communities in each of the U.S. Census
Bureau’s nine regional divisions (U.S. News & World Report, 2018).
Summary: As demonstrated by the information collected from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, WADOH, and the Island County Board of Health, Island County is among the healthiest
places to live and to work in the State of Washington. Island County ranks third for health outcomes and
fifth for health factors among the 39 counties that comprise the State of Washington.
Table 1 Island County and Washington State Health Factors
Health Factor1, 2 Island County3 Washington State
Physical Health
Adults reporting good, very good, or excellent health 84.0% 84.3%
(2011-2013) (2013)
Years of healthy life at age 20 years4 52 50
(2013) (2013)
Adults reporting ≥14 days per month where poor health interferes with 14.8% 14.7%
normal activities (2011-2013) (2013)
Mental Health
Adults reporting ≥14 days per month of poor mental health 10.9% 12.5%
(2011-2013) (2013)
Adults receiving needed emotional support only sometimes, rarely, or 17.7% 22.8%
never (2011-2013) (2013)
Adults ever diagnosed with depression 27.7% 23.5%
(2011-2013) (2013)
10th grade students feeling so sad or hopeless for 2 or more weeks in a 34.8% 34.9%
row that they stopped doing normal activities (2014) (2014)
10th grade students seriously considering suicide in the past year 22.8% 20.5%
(2014) (2014)
6th grade students seriously considering suicide in the past year 18.5% 15.0%
(2014) (2014)

I-6

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table 1 Island County and Washington State Health Factors


Health Factor1, 2 Island County3 Washington State
Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes
Pregnant women diagnosed with gestational diabetes 6.6% 7.0%
(2013) (2013)
Premature births (<37 weeks) 6.3% 9.6%
(2013) (2013)
Live births with low or very low birth weight 3.9% 6.4%
(2013) (2013)
Live births with high or very high birth weight 14.3% 10.7%
(2013) (2013)
Hospitalizations (total population)
Rate of hospital admission per 100,000 population (age-adjusted) 7,092 8,564
(2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Diseases of the circulatory system: Rate per 100,000 total population 892 1,002
(age-adjusted) (2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue: Rate per 650 574
100,000 total population (age-adjusted) (2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Diseases of the digestive system: Rate per 100,000 total population 736 723
(age-adjusted) (2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Diseases of the respiratory system: Rate per 100,000 total population 499 554
(age-adjusted) (2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Child Hospitalizations (1-14 years)
Diseases of the respiratory system: Rate per 100,000 population 166 260
(2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Mental illness: Rate per 100,000 population 130 76
(2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Diseases of the digestive system: Rate per 100,000 population 99 141
(2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases: Rate per 100,000 79 74
population (2013-2014) (2013-2014)
Chronic and Non-Communicable Disease
Adults ever told they have diabetes (excluding gestational) 7.9% 8.6%
(2011-2013) (2013)
Adults currently with asthma 12.6% 9.9%
(2011-2013) (2013)
10th grade students ever told they have diabetes 5.7% 3.2%
(2014) (2014)
10th grade students ever told they have asthma 20.0% 22.0%
(2014) (2014)
Breast cancer incidence rate per 100,000 (age-adjusted) 163 172
(2012) (2012)
Prostate cancer incidence rate per 100,000 (age-adjusted) 119 111
(2012) (2012)
Colorectal cancer incidence rate per 100,000 (age-adjusted) 32 37
(2012) (2012)
Lung cancer incidence rate per 100,000 (age-adjusted) 47 60
(2012) (2012)

I-7

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table 1 Island County and Washington State Health Factors


Health Factor1, 2 Island County3 Washington State
Mortality
Major cardiovascular disease (leading causes of death for total 148.3 188.4
population, age-adjusted rate per 100,000) (2013) (2013)
Malignant neoplasms (leading causes of death for total population, 129.0 156.1
age-adjusted rate per 100,000) (2013) (2013)
Alzheimer’s disease (leading causes of death for total population, age- 33.4 43.6
adjusted rate per 100,000) (2013) (2013)
Chronic lower respiratory disease (leading causes of death for total 28.8 69.4
population, age-adjusted rate per 100,000) (2013) (2013)
Diabetes mellitus (leading causes of death for total population, age- 17.3 21.3
adjusted rate per 100,000) (2013) (2013)
Intentional self-harm (suicide) (leading causes of death for total 23.2 14.0
population, age-adjusted rate per 100,000) (2013) (2013)
1
Source: Island County, 2016. Island County’s primary sources included:
- U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS)
- WA Dept. of Health, Vital Statistics
- WA Dept. of Health, Center for Health Statistics
- WA Dept. of Health, Center for Health Statistics, Birth Certificate Data
- WA Dept. of Health, Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (CHARS)
- WA Dept. of Health, Center for Cancer Registry
- Washington State Healthy Youth Survey
2
To contrast Island County with the state, Washington figures are shown, but a direct comparison is not
made. Interpreting data based on few survey respondents or a small number of events can be difficult
because random fluctuation can be relatively large. Considerable caution should be used in interpreting data
where the number of events is small. Generally, a 95% confidence interval should be assumed for each rate,
percent, or other measure. Island County can be assumed as different from the state only if the differences
are statistically significant at the p<.05 level. Thus, while a line of Island County and state data may look
different, the difference may not be statistically significant (Washington State Department of Health, 2012).
3
Dates listed for data sources vary between indicators because different data sources collect data at different
intervals. In situations where multiple years are cited for one data point, the sample size for a single year
was too small to be statistically significant, and consequently the survey results were combined for the
purpose of drawing an accurate assessment of the data.
4
The metric “years of healthy life at age 20 years” is defined by WADOH as “Additional years a 20-year-old is
expected to live in good, very good, or excellent health. ‘Years of healthy life’ is calculated by adjusting life
expectancy derived from death certificate data with health status measured by the question, ‘Would you say
your health in general is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor’"(Island County, 2016).

3 Local School District Test Scores and Graduation Rates


There are many reasons for academic success, such as an engaging curriculum, teacher experience,
parental involvement, students’ attitudes toward education, and school environment. To measure
overall academic success of students, the State of Washington, Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction, calculates and publicly distributes state testing scores for Smarter Balanced Assessments:
English Language Arts and Math; Measurement of Student Progress: Science; End of Course: Biology; as
well as four-year graduation rates for all school district in the state (See Table 2). As shown in the table,
average test scores and graduation rates within Oak Harbor, Coupeville, and Anacortes School Districts

I-8

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

are, for the majority of measured categories, above Washington State school averages. The average
four-year graduation rate across Washington State is 78.10 percent; average four-year graduation rates
for Anacortes, Coupeville, and Oak Harbor School Districts, respectively, are: 89.10 percent, 84.50
percent, and 85.80 percent (see Table 2) (OSPI [Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction] 2017a,
2017b, 2017c, 2017d).
Summary: Students in the local school districts are more academically successful than many of their
peers across the State of Washington as a whole.
Table 2 Washington State and Local School District Average Test Scores
and Graduation Rates
Smarter
Balanced
Assessments: Smarter Measurement
English Balanced of Student End of
Language Assessments: Progress: Course:
Grade Level Arts Math Science Biology
Washington State Average
3rd Grade 54.30% 58.90% n/a n/a
4th Grade 57% 55.40% n/a n/a
5th Grade 60.10% 49.20% 65.30% n/a
6th Grade 56.50% 48% n/a n/a
7th Grade 58.50% 49.80% n/a n/a
8th Grade 59.70% 47.80% 67.50% n/a
10th Grade n/a n/a n/a 72.20%
11th Grade 75.50% 21.80% n/a n/a
4-Year Graduation Rate 78.10%
Anacortes Average
3rd Grade 69.50% 62.70% n/a n/a
4th Grade 69.60% 70.60% n/a n/a
5th Grade 71.20% 58.60% 74% n/a
6th Grade 70.80% 55% n/a n/a
7th Grade 68% 65.30% n/a n/a
8th Grade 74.50% 70% 85.40% n/a
10th Grade n/a n/a n/a 81.40%
11th Grade n/a 44.6 n/a n/a
4-Year Graduation Rate 89.10%
Coupeville Average
3rd Grade 67% 65.80% n/a n/a
4th Grade 79.60% 63% n/a n/a
5th Grade 79% 53.40% 79% n/a
6th Grade 50.60% 34.10% n/a n/a
7th Grade 61.10% 35.20% n/a n/a
8th Grade 51.70% 23.50% 64.70% n/a
10th Grade n/a n/a n/a 66.60%
11th Grade 75.30% 21.10% n/a n/a
4-Year Graduation Rate 84.50%

I-9

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Table 2 Washington State and Local School District Average Test Scores
and Graduation Rates
Smarter
Balanced
Assessments: Smarter Measurement
English Balanced of Student End of
Language Assessments: Progress: Course:
Grade Level Arts Math Science Biology
Oak Harbor Average
3rd Grade 53.70% 58.10% n/a n/a
4th Grade 57.80% 58.90% n/a n/a
5th Grade 64.80% 53.10% 74.10% n/a
6th Grade 53.10% 42% n/a n/a
7th Grade 59.30% 50.10% n/a n/a
8th Grade 67% 50.60% 67% n/a
10th Grade n/a n/a n/a 78.10%
11th Grade 75% 34.50% n/a n/a
4-Year Graduation Rate 85.80%
Sources: OSPI, 2017a-d

4 Comparison of a Health Impact Assessment and Environmental


Impact Statement and Review of Other Heath Impact Assessments
This section documents the steps taken and determinations made by the Navy to formulate a response
to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Washington Department of Health (WADOH)
comments regarding the preparation of a HIA to supplement the Final EIS prepared pursuant to NEPA.
This section is organized as follows:
• 4.1: Comparison of the HIA and NEPA processes with respect to this EIS
• 4.2: Review of industry practices in the preparation of HIAs
• 4.3: Agency consultation
• 4.4: A discussion of how public health practitioners view available literature
USEPA recommended a HIA to characterize baseline conditions and projected health impacts, and it
provided five scientific literature studies that may be useful in the noise analysis. Similarly, WADOH
requested a HIA to better understand the potential impact of the Proposed Action on the health of the
community and provided a short literature summary for consideration.
Introduction
In the 1990s, the World Health Organization began promoting HIAs to help decision makers and local
communities craft smarter policies that protect public health and wellness, especially when NEPA-like
legislation and a framework of environmental regulations had not been enacted by a country, state
government, or local municipality. As such, HIAs are often prepared to support decision making for
large-scale infrastructure projects in developing countries and for major capital investment projects in
Europe, Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. These HIAs are typically prepared by the public agency with
authority and oversight for the project, such as a department of transportation or an airport authority.

I-10

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

For many reasons, HIAs are not commonly used in the United States. At the federal level, the Navy and
other federal agencies comply with NEPA and a framework of environmental regulations to protect the
environment and human health. This national policy, as implemented by Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations, requires the comprehensive analysis of environmental resources, including
human health and safety considerations related to the Proposed Action; therefore, the preparation of a
separate HIA that focuses on public health would generally be superfluous. At the state or local level,
only about 20 jurisdictions have established state or local environmental review requirements (CEQ,
2017). Only a few state legislatures have considered HIAs or components of an HIA as part of their
decision-making process. For example, Washington State enacted legislation in 2007 requiring the
preparation of a HIA for a state bridge replacement project (discussed in Part A of Section 4.2). In 2009,
Massachusetts enacted legislation requiring HIAs for state transportation projects, and, in 2011,
Vermont enacted legislation for the Vermont Department of Health to recommend a plan to implement
a “public health impact assessment process” to evaluate the health effects of local, municipal, and state
policy and planning decisions. While many state legislatures and local jurisdictions are exploring how
HIAs may inform policies, plans, and programs, most state and local jurisdictions do not yet require the
preparation of HIAs for their infrastructure projects (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and PEW
Charitable Trust, 2015). Based on a USEPA review of 81 HIAs prepared in the United States by 2014, HIAs
are used most frequently by local governments in California. “While the use of HIA to inform decision-
making is on the rise, it is used most frequently at the local level and less frequently at the county, state
and federal levels” (USEPA, 2014).
To better understand the need to supplement the EIS with a HIA, the Navy compared the HIA and NEPA
processes, and reviewed completed HIAs prepared by the State of Washington for state projects and
HIAs prepared both nationally and internationally for airport-related projects, as discussed in Sections
4.1 and 4.2 below. The HIAs reviewed are available to the public using online sources and selected from
infrastructure projects--either located within the State of Washington or related to airports. Section 4.3
describes Navy coordination efforts with other organizations and agencies to share the information
learned and to ensure the professional and scientific integrity of the information, in accordance with 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.24, while Section 4.4 is a discussion of how public health
practitioners view available literature.

4.1 Comparison of the HIA and NEPA Processes with Respect to this EIS
A HIA is a decision-support tool that provides a means of factoring evidence-based health considerations
into the decision-making process. An HIA has been described as “a systematic process that uses an array
of data sources and analytic methods, and considers input from stakeholders to determine the potential
effects of a proposed policy, plan, program, or project on the health of a population and the distribution
of those effects within the population. HIAs provide recommendations on monitoring and managing
those effects” (National Academies, 2011). NEPA requires a comprehensive review, and public
disclosure, of the effects of major federal actions on the human environment in order to support
informed federal decision making and to increase transparency regarding a Proposed Action. Both EISs
prepared pursuant to NEPA and HIAs follow a series of procedural steps: screening; scoping, or selecting
which health effects to assess and which analytic approaches to employ in the assessment; assessing;
reporting; and monitoring. Neither the USEPA nor any government regulator has adopted
comprehensive guidance on HIA use or HIA methodology, or provided guidance on how a HIA
complements or provides information different from a comprehensive EIS prepared under NEPA.

I-11

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Similar to the NEPA process, a HIA is a systematic process that helps evaluate the potential health
effects of a project before it is built or implemented. The HIAs discussed in Section 4.2 bring potential
public health impacts and considerations to the decision-making process for projects that fall outside
the traditional public healthcare field, such as transportation projects, land-use plans, and waste
management/site revitalization projects. Unlike other health-related assessments that focus on a
narrow, predetermined set of medical health risks, HIAs purport to offer a broad review of the impacts a
proposed project may have on the general overall public health and wellness, such as levels of obesity,
injury, asthma, and diabetes, when considering policies, plans, and programs to build safe, thriving
communities.
In comparison, NEPA and its implementing CEQ regulations require agencies to thoroughly analyze
environmental impacts on the human environment. Over the decades since NEPA’s enactment, agencies
have institutionalized a process to assess the potential effects of a Proposed Action in order to inform
federal decision making and to increase the transparency of the federal agency planning actions. NEPA
and related laws explicitly require the consideration of human health effects that are reasonably
foreseeable based on the Proposed Action.
In implementing the Navy’s NEPA policy as prescribed in OPNAV M-5090.1, the Navy offered two rounds
of public scoping to engage elected leaders, agencies, organizations, and private citizens. During these
rounds of scoping, their public comments were used to define the scope and breadth of the analysis for
preparing the Draft Growler EIS. As a result of public scoping, the Navy considered direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts on 16 environmental resources and prepared a 1,400-page analysis that included
the potential noise impacts associated with auditory and nonauditory health effects. The public scoping
comments also informed the depth of the analysis and the methodology used to analyze the potential
impacts of the Proposed Action and considered vulnerable population groups.
As a result of public scoping and the need to use the best available science, the Navy prepared a
thorough literature review of auditory and nonauditory health effects of exposure to military aircraft
noise and consulted with the Navy-Marine Corps Public Health Center (NMCPHC) and Federal
Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) at various times during the preparation of the
Growler EIS. In addition, the Navy provided courtesy briefings and considered comments received from
the public and other government agencies, including the USEPA and WADOH. This analysis of available
literature is found in Section 4.2 of the EIS, and more detailed information is provided in Section 3.2.4 of
the EIS and Appendix A1 of the Aircraft Noise Study (Appendix A).
In sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the EIS, the Navy presented a comprehensive noise analysis with supplemental
noise metrics in order to assess the potential effects of intermittent exposure to military aircraft noise.
Specifically, the Navy used the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), the federal standard, for analyzing
the long-term community annoyance with noise exposure from aircraft operations. The data associated
with DNL analysis were presented using DNL contour maps for land use planning and identified acreage
and population within the projected noise contours. In addition, the Navy provided supplemental noise
metrics to provide more detailed information on potential impacts of noise exposure as it relates to
specific noise effects and population groups. These metrics include Single Event Level (SEL) and
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) to assess the highest levels of noise that would result from a single aircraft
event, such as a flyover. More specifically, the Navy quantified noise effects using supplemental metrics
for:

I-12

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

a. Thirty points of interest, subsequently expanded to 48 points of interest in the Final EIS, such as
residential areas, schools, and parks (note: this is an unusually large number of points of
interest, but the data were gathered and provided in direct response to scoping questions.)
b. Indoor speech interference
c. Classroom/learning interference
d. Sleep disturbance for residential areas (probability of awakening)
e. Potential noise effects on recreation
f. Potential hearing loss for the general population and for the noise-sensitive population.
In Section 2.4 of the EIS, the Navy addressed public-suggested options to reduce noise by relocating
aircraft or training. No one location can reasonably accommodate absorption of the Growler community
without a significant shift in resources, including the potential need for condemning or acquiring land,
construction, and a significant influx of new personnel and dependents. In addition, such a shift would
simply move any associated impact from one community to another while exponentially increasing
overall environmental impacts due to the need for new facilities, personnel movement, airspace
management, and land use planning, among other impacts associated with re-creating a new location
for the Growler community. The Navy discussed existing noise mitigation measures in Section 3.2.4.1 of
the EIS (i.e., compatible land-use planning, ongoing noise abatement procedures, and use of the noise-
complaint phone number) and new technologies for noise-abatement (i.e., chevrons, MAGIC CARPET,
and hush house) in Section 4.2.6.
As mentioned previously, the Navy assessed a total of 16 resources, and the scope of this analysis met
or exceeded the scope of a typical HIA. For example, the Navy provided detailed air emission
calculations for mobile and stationary sources of all criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) in Section 4, with details on the air emission calculations found in Appendix B. Other resources
analyzed include, but are not limited to, land use, human public health and safety (including impacts to
children), socioeconomics, environmental justice as related to vulnerable population groups such as
minorities and low-income populations, transportation, infrastructure, hazardous materials and wastes,
climate change, and greenhouse gases.
Summary: Although the Growler EIS does not include a stand-alone HIA, by following the Navy’s NEPA
policy as prescribed in OPNAV M-5090.1, the EIS analysis exceeds the purpose and scope generally
associated with HIAs. Furthermore, the EIS analysis satisfies the best practices identified in a HIA review,
as described in “Minimum Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessments, Version 3,
dated September 2014” (Bhatia, 2014). The EIS documents extensive public stakeholder engagement,
with a transparent literature review on nonauditory health impacts; assesses the potential noise effects
using best available science (data, methods, and metrics); assesses air quality and socioeconomic
aspects of the Proposed Action, including vulnerable population groups (children, minorities, and the
low-income population); and discusses reasonable and actionable noise mitigation actions as
appropriate for a military airfield with a vital defense mission.

4.2 Review of Industry Practices in the Preparation of HIAs


The Navy reviewed the following completed HIAs, available from the Centers for Disease Control library
or otherwise available to the public online. In general, many of these HIAs took a broad-brush approach
to public health and wellness, and discussed health impacts in comparatively general terms. None of the
HIAs delved into the level of analysis and detail as provided in the Growler EIS.
I-13

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

The Navy reviewed three HIAs prepared for transportation and site revitalization projects in the State of
Washington, a state that has enabling legislation to conduct HIAs as well as the location for the
Proposed Action. These documents only considered public health and wellness in a very general sense
(i.e., promoting good health through an active lifestyle, access to fresh food, and better healthcare).
None of these HIAs reviewed provided as quantitative an analysis of impacts associated with their
Proposed Action or long-term health analysis as did this EIS.
a. 2008 HIA for SR 520 Replacement: A Bridge to a Healthier Community (87 pages). As
mentioned in Section 1, Introduction, the State of Washington had enacted legislation to
prepare a HIA as part of a highway and bridge replacement project. The resulting report
recommended design elements that would contribute to a healthier community by encouraging
a more active lifestyle. The recommended design elements included reducing construction
impacts, providing walking and bicycling facilities, incorporating green space and landscaping,
and reducing highway traffic noise with quieter road surfacing materials and use of sound
barriers that incorporate art and visual design features (Seattle and King Counties, 2008).
b. 2011 HIA for King Street Station Multimodal Hub (52 pages). This HIA focused on health equity,
safety and injury, air and noise pollution, social capital and mental health, and physical activity
and obesity as potential effects from establishing a major transportation hub for general traffic,
light rail, local bus service, as well as pedestrians and cyclists. This study incorporated a small
literature review and provided the following recommendations: air quality considerations, noise
monitoring and other mitigations during project construction (i.e., use of high-efficiency
construction equipment with low-emission engines); minimize bus stop closures and consider
alternatives for travelers with disabilities; reclaim public space for pedestrians and consider
adding green space; improve pedestrian and bicyclist experience; implement iconic design
features such as canopies, benches, way-finding tools, and other amenities designed to
encourage an active lifestyle; meet and exceed standards and policies for the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Seattle Bicycle Master Plan, Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan, and Livable South
Downtown Plan; and monitor progress toward supporting an active lifestyle (Seattle County,
2011).
c. 2012 HIA for Lower Duwamish Waterway Cleanup (60 pages). This HIA focused on four areas
impacted by the waterway cleanup project: construction impacts, economic impacts, social and
cultural impacts, and fish-consumption impacts. Overarching recommendations included a
public notification system to alert residents of construction activities; following established
industry best practices for the cleanup efforts; mitigating negative economic impacts of
construction activities by hiring local workers; identifying the dominant languages in the
affected population and translating messages accordingly; using temporary art created from
local artists to offset the stress of construction activities; and creating community recreation
opportunities (Daniell, 2013).
The Navy reviewed three HIAs, prepared for airport-related actions at two international and one U.S.
airports, that were chosen because the full-text document was available online. While abstracts for
other airport projects were available online, the full HIAs were not readily available. A comparison of
these airport HIAs with the EIS is provided below.
a. 2007 New Parallel Runway at Brisbane Australia (41 pages). This HIA is Appendix D7 of an EIS
and Master Development Plan to add a new parallel runway to the airport. The HIA included a
small literature review of the potential health effects of aircraft noise exposure and calculated
I-14

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

changes in ambient air pollutants of some criteria pollutants and some hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs). The analysis focused on annoyance, sleep disturbance, and impacts to cognitive abilities
of children. The literature review looks very similar to Appendix A1 of the Aircraft Noise Study
(included as Appendix A of the EIS) and focuses on annoyance as the main outcome from noise
exposure (Brisbane Airport Corporation, 2007).
b. 2010 HIA for Santa Monica Airport (21 pages). This HIA was conducted by a group of pediatric
residents at UCLA that considered a limited literature view, patient comments, and their own
observations as medical practitioners. It considered particulates and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) in soil samples. It determined that noise of aircraft takeoffs from the Santa
Monica Airport were above Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) thresholds and considered
the effects of noise on hearing loss, psychological distress, and cognitive abilities of children
without an objective, quantifiable analysis. Unlike other HIAs, this HIA was not conducted as
part of a capital improvement project but was instead conducted by individuals associated with
a local health advocacy program. The HIA recommended eliminating or significantly reducing jet
takeoffs to reduce exposure to byproducts of jet fuel exhaust and loud “single event noise”;
installing high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters in adjacent schools and homes to mitigate
exposure to air pollution; enforcing FAA noise thresholds for noise abatement strategies at
commercial airports, such as soundproofing of schools and homes; adopting noise and health
disclosures to notify potential buyers and residents in the vicinity of the airport; maintaining a
runway buffer zone of at least 660 meters from residents; and permanently closing the heavily
encroached upon airport (UCLA Pediatric Residents, 2010).
c. 2015 Updated HIA for London City Airport (110 pages). This updated report is a conclusive
document reflecting the whole project and not an update summary. The scope, focus, and
conclusions did not materially change from the original report but reflected changes in
construction permit application and additional nonauditory health information related to
aircraft noise, such as annoyance, night time construction noise and possible sleep disturbance,
and cardiovascular effects. It predicted minor changes in air quality, noise, and transportation
that “were not sufficient to quantify any adverse health outcome.” Moreover, it accounted for
other direct, indirect, and induced socio-economic benefits and the airport’s commitment to the
community support, charitable events, and local employment as a net health benefit (London
City Airport, 2015).
Other Studies of Interest:
a. 2015 Comparison of Health Impact Assessment of the Proposed Third Runway by the Hong
Kong Airport Authority (HKAA) with Other Airports (29 pages). The 2014 Environmental Impact
Assessment prepared by HKAA provided a HIA that analyzed both criteria pollutants and some
HAPs, provided a basic literature review, and focused on annoyance, self-reported sleep
disruption, and cognitive performance of children in schools. In 2015, the Dashing Policy
Research Center commissioned the 2015 study to compare the environmental health standards,
the methodologies used for the 2014 HKAA HIA, plus the results of 10 other HIA studies
prepared for airport projects in other countries.
The 2015 comparison study of 11 different airport HIAs (prepared between 1991 and 2014)
underscores that there is no standard framework or protocols for conducting HIAs, even for
similar actions. Regarding air quality, some studies did not consider air quality; some studies
only considered particulate matter; other studies consider some or all National Ambient Air

I-15

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Quality Standard (NAAQS) criteria pollutants regulated in the United States; and still others only
considered some HAPs associated with gasolines, oils, and fuels. Some HIAs provided a limited
literature review on auditory and nonauditory health effects, while others did not consider
potential hearing loss or health effects. Two HIAs considered the annoyance of odors. Only two
of the 11 HIAs included public stakeholder input. A wide variety of health topics were
considered in different HIAs. The individual HIAs considered a small subset, but not all, of the
following health topics: potential hearing loss, annoyance, mental distress, perception of
risk/accident potential, impaired cognitive levels, sleep disruption and sleep disorders,
respiratory conditions, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer incidence. The various HIAs
concluded that annoyance, sleep disturbance, and reduced cognitive abilities were likely but
that hearing loss, increase in respiratory effects, and cancer incidents were unlikely.
Furthermore, some HIAs considered economic benefits of employment, community
regeneration, business retention, and tourism as a net health benefit. The conclusion of this
2015 comparison study was that the 2014 HKAA HIA was adequate for its intended purpose for
a vital public transportation project (Hong Kong Airport Authority, 2014).
b. 2008 report entitled “Effects of Aircraft Noise: Research Update on Selected Topics.” This
report, published by the National Academies Press for the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, synthesized research studies related to aviation noise since 1985.
This report noted that “the effect of aviation noise on health is an intricately complex and
notoriously difficult field of study” and that lifestyle choices, life’s stressors, hereditary factors,
and genetic composition are some of the confounding factors that “may distort the results of an
aviation noise health effects study.” The report condensed the health effects literature studies
into one chapter, which discussed the cardiovascular system, children, and hearing impairment.
Subsequent chapters summarized literature studies with respect to annoyance; sleep
disturbance; speech interference; effects on schools; effects on parks; open spaces and
wilderness areas; low-frequency noise and vibration; effects on wildlife and domestic animals;
effects on property values; and, finally, the effects of meteorology and topography on aviation
noise. The report concluded that “despite decades of research, including the review of old data
and multiple new research efforts, health effects of aviation noise continue to be an enigma.
Most, if not all, current research concludes that it is, as yet, impossible to determine causal
relations between health disorders and noise exposures” (National Academies, 2008).
c. 2005 Sound Noise Limits: Options for a Uniform Noise Limiting Scheme for Larger European
Airports (Appendix B, Noise Mitigation Measures). This report assesses the effectiveness of
various noise mitigation measures available for commercial European airports. It analyzed four
possible ways to mitigate aircraft noise: reducing noise at the source through research and
development; land use planning to keep people and incompatible land uses away from the
noise; ongoing noise-abatement procedures; and, as a last resort, operating restrictions. These
noise-mitigation measures are very similar to those discussed in Appendix H of the Final EIS (Van
Essen et al., 2005).
Summary: The Navy’s process of preparing the Growler EIS meets and exceeds the intent, the scope,
and the content for a typical HIA. In fact, it fulfilled all applicable best practices identified and listed in
the USEPA April 2014 factsheet: “A Review of Health Impact Assessments in the US: Current State of
Science, Best Practices and Areas of Improvement.” In most cases, the Growler EIS analysis provides an
objective, data-driven analysis that far exceeds the more general information contained in most other

I-16

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

HIAs. It is fair to conclude that while some HIAs provided a basic and fairly concise summary of existing
literature, those HIAs did not conduct a location-specific analysis of environmental and health impacts
normally found in an EIS. Furthermore, the noise mitigation measures discussed in the Growler EIS
analysis are similar to noise mitigation initiatives used at commercial airports based on the three
airport-related HIAs reviewed and the 2005 report on commercial European airports. In addition, a
Noise and Health Reader’s Guide was developed to assist readers in locating information within the EIS
related to potential health effects of noise. This guide is organized by topic and includes where to find
information on the latest science related to noise and health, standards the Navy uses to assess
potential impacts, and potential impacts of the Proposed Action. This guide is included as part of the 30-
page Executive Summary for the EIS.

4.3 Agency Consultation


Following the publication of the Draft EIS, the Navy received comments from USEPA Region 10
suggesting that the Navy prepare an HIA. The comments did not provide information detailing what
information in the Draft EIS was missing or incorrect or how an HIA would provide information different
than what was already included in the Draft EIS. The Navy reviewed the link provided in the USEPA
comments, but the link provided very generalized information regarding HIAs that did not inform how
the Navy should augment its analysis. The Navy searched and reviewed numerous HIAs prepared for
other projects and found that HIAs served a similar but more limited role to that of NEPA documents,
but none contained the level of quantitative and qualitative analysis of potential health impacts found in
the Draft EIS. None of the HIAs provided new or unique research but instead conducted limited
literature reviews.
As a result of the Navy’s findings under Sections 4.1 and 4.2 above, Navy staff reached out to USEPA
Region 10 to obtain additional guidance. As a result of those discussions, and due to the extensive
discussion of potential health impacts already included in the Draft EIS, the Navy accepted the USEPA’s
recommendation that it expand the discussion on viability of noise mitigation measures.
Additionally, the Navy consulted with WADOH to discuss its request that the Navy consider 82 research
studies and prepare an HIA. The Navy had already reviewed over 200 literature studies suggested in the
Draft EIS public comments, and many studies suggested by WADOH were previously considered in the
Navy’s literature review or referenced in/by studies that the Navy had already considered. Nonetheless,
the Navy agreed to review its literature study to confirm it was comprehensive. In addition, the Navy
expanded its analysis and has provided an overview of the public health statistics as reported by
WADOH and compared overall health in Island County to the rest of Washington State (Section 2 above).
The Navy believes that the comments are suggesting a broader, long-term research study aimed at
attempting to determine whether there is a link between aircraft noise and health impacts, and not an
HIA since an HIA would provide less comprehensive, at least duplicative, analysis than what is found in
this EIS. The analysis in this EIS far exceeds the analysis contained in all of the HIAs reviewed by the
Navy. It should be noted that numerous studies have already been conducted on this topic, and there
are inconsistent or inconclusive results, as discussed in Appendix A1 of the Aircraft Noise Study
(Appendix A). Such a study, to have any rigor or scientific validity, would have to be conducted over
many years or even decades and is well outside what is required by NEPA or the scope of the Navy’s
statutory mission. As noted above, the Navy examined the most current and available literature in
preparation of the analysis (see Appendix A1 of the Final EIS). It also prepared extensive qualitative and

I-17

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

quantitative analyses using numerous supplemental metrics based on the best available science to
predict future impacts, including hearing loss, annoyance, sleep disturbance, and impact to children.
In order to determine whether relevant research might be ongoing or impending, the Defense Noise
Working Group (DNWG) consulted the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Based on the information
provided by the NIH, no such research studies are underway or planned. The NIH confirmed that the
potential health effects associated with highway noise and aviation noise are not considered a national
medical priority. Should the USEPA, WADOH, or another agency wish to prepare a research study, the
Navy would likely participate alongside other federal agencies such as the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Defense, and Department of Transportation.
Conclusion: The USEPA’s suggestion of a supplemental health assessment did not specifically identify
any incomplete information in the Draft EIS (See 40 CFR 1502.22), and it did not call into question the
Draft EIS methodology for analyzing these impacts (See 40 CFR 1502.24). Creating a stand-alone HIA
with the contents of the Navy’s analysis did not serve any practical purpose since this information is
already provided in the EIS.

4.4 A Discussion of How Public Health Practitioners View Available Literature


While WADOH health statistics did not indicate a health concern, the WADOH literature review was
prepared with an abundance of caution in order to determine whether a public health consequence may
exist with regard to annoyance, sleep disturbance, cognitive impairment, and cardiovascular disease.
The 2008 Report by the National Academies performed a more detailed synthesis of the available
literature and found that “it is as yet impossible to determine cause and effect relationship between
health effects and aviation noise exposure.” In preparation of the Final EIS, the Navy reviewed 260
published articles as suggested by public comment. In doing so, the Navy identified that many of these
studies had been already reviewed and included in the Navy’s literature review or were referenced in or
by studies the Navy has already considered. However, expanded information has been incorporated as
appropriate throughout the Final EIS. The studies did not change the overall findings of the Navy’s
original literature review. See Appendix A-8 for details on the literature review process.

5 References
Bhatia, R., L. Farhang, J. Heller, M. Lee, M. Orenstein, M. Richardson, and A. Wernham. (2014). Minimum
Elements and Practice Standards for Health Impact Assessments, Version 3, dated September
2014. Available online at:
http://advance.captus.com/planning/hia2xx/pdf/Minimum%20Elements%20and%20Practice%2
0Standards%20for%20HIA%203.0.pdf
Brisbane Airport Corporation. (2007). VOLUME D: AIRSPACE Health Impact Assessment, New Parallel
Runway at Brisbane Australia. 41 pages. Accessed June 28, 2017:
http://www.bne.com.au/sites/all/files/content/files/D7%20Health%20Impact%20Assess.pdf.
CEQ. (2017). States and Local Jurisdictions with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements. July
2017. Available online at National Environmental Policy Act, The Council on Environmental
Quality, website: https://ceq.doe.gov/laws-regulations/states.html

I-18

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

County Health Rankings. (2017). Health Outcomes and Health Factors. Accessed June 20, 2017 at
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/our-approach/health-outcomes and
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/our-approach/health-factors.
Daniell W, G. L. (2013). Health Impact Assessment: Proposed Cleanup Plan for the Lower Duwamish
Waterway Superfund Site. Final Report. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Just Health
Action, and Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition/Technical Advisory Group. September 2013.
Available online at:
http://deohs.washington.edu/sites/default/files/research/HIA_final_report_10-15-
13_low_res.pdf
Hong Kong Airport Authority. (2014). A Comparison of the Health Impact Assessment of the Proposed
Third Runway by the Hong Kong Airport Authority with Other Airports. March 2015. Available
online at:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi56Zu13
ZzUAhXM44MKHaXADxUQFgguMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dashun.org.hk%2Fen%2Fresear
ch_download.php%3Fid%3D35&usg=AFQjCNFr8ARyljC8YymY9RI6EWgrOh6nqA
Island County. (2012). Island County 2012 Community Health Assessment. July 30, 2012. Accessed June
20, 2017:
https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Health/Documents/2012_Island_County_Community_Health
_Assessment.pdf.
__________. (2015). 2015 Island County Community Health Survey. December 2015. Accessed June 20,
2017:
https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Health/AHC/Planning/Documents/2015CHA_CommunitySurv
ey.pdf.
__________. (2016). Island County 2015 Community Health Assessment: Health Indicator Summary
Statistics. February 2016. Accessed June 20, 2017:
https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Health/AHC/Planning/Documents/2015CHA_HealthIndicators
.pdf.
London City Airport. (2015). City Airport Development Programme: Updated HIA for London City Airport.
110 pages. September 2015. Accessed June 28, 2017:
https://www.londoncityairport.com/content/cadp/CADP%201%20Submitted%20Material/CADP
%20Updated%20Reports/CADP%20HIA%20(Final).pdf
National Academies. (2008). Effects of Aircraft Noise: Research Update on Select Topics. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. Available online at:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/14177/effects-of-aircraft-noise-research-update-on-select-topics
__________. (2011). Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment.
Washington DC: The National Academies Press. Available online at:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13229/improving-health-in-the-united-states-the-role-of-health
OSPI. (2017a). Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Washington State Report Card.
Washington State Report Card Summary. Accessed June 20, 2017, from
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?schoolId=1&reportLevel=State

I-19

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

__________. (2017b). Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Washington State Report Card.
Anacortes School District Report Card Summary. Accessed June 20, 2017, from
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?schoolId=208&reportLevel=District
__________. (2017c). Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Washington State Report Card.
Coupeville School District Report Card Summary. Accessed June 20, 2017:
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?schoolId=93&reportLevel=District
__________. (2017d). Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. Washington State Report Card. Oak
Harbor School District Report Card Summary. Accessed June 20, 2017:
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?schoolId=92&reportLevel=District
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and PEW Charitable Trust. (2015). Health Impact Assessment
Legislation in the United States (Feb 2015). Available online at:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/01/hia_and_legislation_issue_brief.pdf
Seattle and King Counties. (2008). SR 520 Health Impact Assessment - SR 520 Bridge Replacement: A
Bridge to a Healthier Community. Available online at:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/~/media/health/publichealth/document
s/hia/SR520HealthImpactAssessment.ashx
Seattle County. (2011). Health Impact Assessment: King Street Station Multimodal Hub. Available online
at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/KingStreetStationMultimodalHubHIA.pdf
UCLA Pediatric Residents. (2010). Santa Monica Airport Health Impact Assessment. Available online at:
http://www.hiaguide.org/sites/default/files/SM_Airport_Health_Impact_Assessment.pdf
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. (2017). 2017 County Health Rankings: Washington.
Accessed June 20, 2017 at:
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/state/downloads/CHR2017_WA.pdf
USEPA. (2014). A Review of Health Impact Assessments in the U.S.: Current State-of-Science, Best
Practices, and Areas for Improvement (Revised April 2014). Available online at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-12/documents/health-impact-assessment-
factsheet_0.pdf
U.S. News & World Report. (2018). “Healthiest Communities Rankings.” Accessed June 21, 2018:
https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/rankings.
Van Essen, Huib; Bart Boon; Steve Mitchell; David Yates; Dan Greenwood; Nicole Porter. (2005). 2005
Sound Noise Limits: Options for a Uniform Noise Limiting Scheme for Larger European Airports
(Appendix B, Noise Mitigation Measures). Accessed June 28, 2017:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/air/studies/doc/environment/2005_
01_sound_noise_limits.pdf.
Washington State Department of Health. (2012). Health of Washington State: Appendix A: Technical
Notes. Updated June 1, 2012. Accessed June 23, 2017:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1500/AppA.pdf.

I-20

Appendix I
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

Appendix J
2013 Scoping Information

J-1

Appendix J
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4 September 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

J-2

Appendix J
Federal Register /Vol. 78, No. 172 /Thursday, September 5, 2013 /Notices 54635

other matters relating to the Academy. meeting participants by the public is not Each of the three open house
Specific topics for this meeting include permitted except with the approval of information sessions will be informal
a Superintendent's Update; a USAFA the DFO and Chairman. and consist of information stations
Non-profit Financial Support Briefing; a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For staffed by DoN representatives.
classroom visit and a tour of the Center additional information or to attend this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
for Character and Leadership BoV meeting, contact Maj Mark Cipolla, EA-18G EIS Project Manager (Code
Development. In accordance with 5 Accessions and Training Division, AF/ EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering
U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR AlPT, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, Command (NAVF AC) Atlantic, 6506
102-3 .15 5, one session of this meeting Washington, DC 20330, (703) 695-4066. Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia
shall be closed to the public because it 23508.
involve matters covered by subsection Bao-Anh Trinh,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NAS
(c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b. Public Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Whidbey Island is the home of all Navy
attendance at the open portions of this [FR Doc. 2013-21550 Filed 9-4-13; 8:45 am]
tactical electronic attack (VAQ)
USAF A Bo V meeting shall be BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
squadrons flying the EA-6B Prowler
accommodated on a first-come, first- and EA-18G Growler. In 2005 and 2012,
served basis up to the reasonable and the DoN prepared environmental
safe capacity of the meeting room. In DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
analyses pursuant to NEPA for the
addition, any member of the public replacement of the EA-6B Prowler
wishing to provide input to the USAFA Department of the Navy
aircraft with the newer EA-18G Growler
Bo V should submit a written statement Notice of Intent To Prepare an aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island. The
in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) Environmental Impact Statement for 2005 Environmental Assessment (EA)
and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal EA-1 SG Growler Airfield Operations at evaluated the environmental
Advisory Committee Act and the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, consequences of transitioning fleet
procedures described in this paragraph. Washington and To Announce Public squadrons and the FRS from the EA-6B
Written statements must address the Scoping Meetings to the EA-18G aircraft. The 2012 EA
following details: the issue, discussion, evaluated the environmental
and a recommended course of action. AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. consequences of retaining and
Supporting documentation may also be ACTION: Notice. transitioning the three expeditionary
included as needed to establish the squadrons currently home based at NAS
appropriate historical context and SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c)
Whidbey Island from EA-6B to EA-18G
provide any necessary background of the National Environmental Policy aircraft and the relocation of a reserve
information. Written statements can be Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by expeditionary squadron from Joint Base
submitted to the Designated Federal the Council on Environmental Quality Andrews, Maryland.
Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address regulations (40 Code of Federal To meet current and future
detailed below at any time. However, if Regulations parts 1500-1508), the requirements, the DoN proposes to: (1)
a written statement is not received at Department of the Navy (DoN) Continue and increase the existing VAQ
least 10 calendar days before the first announces its intent to prepare an airfield operations at NAS Whidbey
day gf the meeti:Iig ::which i£ the :mbject E:nviro:nme:ntal Impact Statemeut (EIS) Island complex, which includes Ault
of this notice, then it may not be for EA-18G Growler airfield operations Field and DLF Coupeville; (2) Add two
provided to or considered by the Bo V at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey new Expeditionary VAQ squadrons (10
until its next open meeting. The DFO Island, Washington. The EIS will additional aircraft) and augment the
will review all timely submissions with evaluate the potential environmental VAQ FRS (3 additional aircraft) to
the Bo V Chairman and ensure they are effects associated with the introduction support an expanded expeditionary
provided to members of the Bo V before of two additional EA-18G Growler Department of Defense (DoD) mission
the meeting that is the subject of this expeditionary squadrons (10 aircraft) (total increase of 13 aircraft); (3)
notice. For the benefit of the public, and the addition of three EA-18G Construct and renovate facilities at Ault
rosters that list the names of Bo V Growler aircraft to the Fleet Field over a three-year period to
members and any releasable materials Replacement Squadron (FRS) when accommodate additional aircraft; and (4)
presented during the open portions of added to baseline conditions, including Station up to 860 additional personnel
this Bo V meeting shall be made ongoing EA-18G Growler airfield at and relocate approximately 2,150
available upon request. operations, at NAS Whidbey Island's family members to NAS Whidbey Island
If after review of timely submitted Ault Field and Outlying Landing Field and surrounding community.
written comments and the Bo V (DLF) Coupeville. The purpose of the proposed action is
Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, DATES: Dates and Addresses: Three open to sustain the Navy's electronic attack
they may choose to invite the submitter house information sessions will be held aircraft capabilities at NAS Whidbey
of the written comments to orally between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on: Island. The proposed action is needed to
present the issue during an open portion 1. Tuesday, December 3, 2013, at maintain electronic attack operational
of the Bo V meeting that is the subject of Coupeville High School Commons Area, readiness to support national defense
this notice. Members of the Bo V may 501 South Main Street, Coupeville, requirements under Title 10 United
also petition the Chairman to allow Washington 98239. States Code Part 5062. The VAQ
specific personnel to make oral 2. Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at community of personnel, aircraft,
presentations before the Bo V. In Oak Harbor High School Student Union equipment and mission related Navy
accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(d), Building, 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, functions have been performed almost
any oral presentations before the Bo V Washington 98277. entirely at NAS Whidbey Island since
shall be in accordance with agency 3. Thursday, December 5, 2013, at 1971. With the disestablishment of U.S.
guidelines provided pursuant to a Anacortes Middle School Cafeteria, Marine Corps capabilities, the DoD
written invitation and this paragraph. 2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington Expeditionary VAQ mission is single-
Direct questioning of Bo V members or 98221. sited at NAS Whidbey Island which
54636 Federal

maximizes operational capabilities and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION necessary to the proper functions of the
efficiencies without duplicating Department; (2) will this information be
[Docket No. ED-2013-ICCD-0085]
facilities and functions at another processed and used in a timely manner;
location. Agency Information Collection (3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
In addition to the No Action Activities; Submission to the Office of (4) how might the Department enhance
Alternative, this EIS will assess the Management and Budget for Review the quality, utility, and clarity of the
potential environmental effects of action and Approval; Comment Request; information to be collected; and (5) how
alternatives to be developed by DoN for Race to the Top-Early Learning might the Department minimize the
different operational scenarios. Challenge Annual Performance Report burden of this collection on the
The environmental analysis in the EIS responder{ts, including through the use
will focus on several aspects of the AGENCY: Office of Elementary and of information technology. Please note
proposed action: Aircraft operations at Secondary Education (OESE), ED. that written comments received in
Ault Field and OLF Coupeville; facility ACTION: Notice. response to this notice will be
construction; and personnel changes. considered public records.
Resource areas to be addressed in the SUMMARY: In accordance with the Title of Collection: Race to the Top-
EIS will include, but not be limited to: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 Early Learning Challenge Annual
Air quality, noise, land use, U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is Performance Report.
socioeconomics, natural resources, proposing a new information collection. 0MB Control Number: 1810-NEW.
biological resources, cultural resources, DATES: Interested persons are invited to Type of Review: New collection.
and safety and environmental hazards. submit comments on or before October Respondents/Affected Public: State,
The analysis will evaluate direct and 7, 2013. Local, or Tribal Governments.
indirect impacts, and will account for ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in Total Estimated Number of Annual
cumulative impacts from other relevant response to this notice should be Responses: 21.
submitted electronically through the Total Estimated Number of Annual
activities near the installation. Relevant Burden Hours: 2,520.
and reasonable measures that could Federal eRuleniaking Portal at http:!I
Abstract: The Race to the Top-Early
avoid or mitigate environmental effects www.regulations.gov by selecting
Learning Challenge program is
will also be analyzed. Additionally, the Docket ID number ED-2013-ICCD-0085
authorized by Sections 14005 and
DoN will undertake any consultation or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 14006, Division A, of the American
applicable by law and regulation. No or hand delivery. Please note that Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
decision will be made to implement any comments submitted by fax or email as amended by section 1832(b) of
alternative until the EIS process is . and those submitted after the comment Division B of Public Law 112-10, the
completed and a Record of Decision is period will not be accepted. Written Department of Defense and Full-Year
signed by the Assistant Secretary of the requests for information or comments Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,
Navy (Energy, Installations and submitted by postal mail or delivery and the Department of Education
Environment) or designee. should be addressed to the Director of Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of
The scoping process will be used to the Information Collection Clearance Division F of Pub. L. 112-74, the
identify community concerns and local Division, U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012).
issues to be addr:essed iP the EIS 4QQ Maryland Avenue SW TBJ Room
This program 1s Jointly managed by the
Federal agencies, state agencies, local 2E115, Washington, DC 20202--4537. U.S. Department of Education and the
agencies, Native American Indian Tribes FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For U.S. Department of Health and Human
and Nations, the public, and interested questions related To collection activities Services. The purpose of the Race to the
persons are encouraged to provide or burden, please call Tomakie Top-Early Learning Challenge program
comments to the DoN to identify Washington, 202--401-1097 or is to focus on improving early learning
specific issues or topics of electronically mail ICDocketMgr@ and development programs for young
environmental concern that the ed.gov. Please do not send comments children by supporting States' efforts to:
commenter believes the DoN should here. (1) increase the number and percentage
consider. All comments provided orally SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The of low-income and disadvantaged
or in writing at the scoping meetings or Department of Education (ED), in children in each age group of infants,
by mail during the scoping period will accordance with the Paperwork toddlers, and preschoolers who are
receive the same consideration during Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. enrolled in high-quality early learning
EIS preparation. All comments must be 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general programs; (2) design and implement an
postmarked no later than January 3, public and Federal agencies with an integrated system of high-quality early
2014. opportunity to comment on proposed, learning programs and services; and (3)
To be included on the DoN's mailing
revised, and continuing collections of ensure that any use of assessments
list for the EIS (or to receive a copy of
information. This helps the Department conforms with the recommendations of
the Draft EIS, when released), a written
assess the impact of its information the National Research Council's reports
request should be submitted to: EA-18G
collection requirements and minimize on early childhood. Five key program
EIS Project Manager (Code EV21/SS);
the public's reporting burden. It also reform areas representing the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
helps the public understand the foundation of an effective early learning
(NA VF AC) Atlantic, 6506 Hampton
Department's information collection and development reform agenda focused
Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23508.
requirements and provide the requested on school readiness and ongoing
August 29, 2013. data in the desired format. ED is educational success. These five key
P.A. Richelmi, soliciting comments on the proposed reform areas are: (A) successful State
Lieutenant, Office of the Judge Advocate information collection request (ICR) that Systems; (B) High-Quality, Accountable
General, U. S. Navy, Alternate Federal is described below. The Department of Programs; (C) Promoting Early Learning
Register Liaison Officer. Education is especially interested in and Development Outcomes for
[FR Doc. 2013-21483 Filed 9-4-13; 8:45 am] public comment addressing the Children; (D) A Great Early Childhood
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P following issues: (1) is this collection Education Workforce; and (E) Measuring
3188 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 12/Friday, January 17, 2014/Notices

Affairs Office of the Army baseline against which the proposed DoN published a notice of intent to
Environmental Command at 210-466- action and alternatives are compared. prepare an EIS for EA-18G Growler
1590 or 1-855-846-3940 (toll free}, or Under this alternative, the SGSP would Airfield Operations at NAS Whidbey
by email at usarmy.jbsa.aex.mbx@ not be built. The EIS process will also Island, Washington and also announced
mail.mil. examine whether there are additional public scoping meetings. DoN provided
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
reasonable alternatives that could meet a 120-day public scoping period which
Army's proposed action, referred to as the needs of both the Army and ended on January 3, 2014. The original
the Schofield Generating Station Project Hawaiian Electric. public scoping period was intended to
(SGSP}, is a lease of 10.3 acres of land Key resources of concern, for which avoid any complications or delays that
and a related 2.5 acre interconnection potentially significant impacts could could result from government
easement on Schofield Barracks to occur, include air quality, traffic, and shutdowns and the end of the calendar
Hawaiian Electric, as well Hawaiian stormwater. The Army is preparing year.
Electric's construction, ownership, supporting studies for those resources. This notice announces an extension of
operation, and maintenance of a 50 MW The Department of the Army the public scoping period until January
biofuel-capable power generation plant encourages all interested members of 31, 2014. Scoping comments may be
and 46-kilovolt subtransmission line. the public, as well as federal, state, and submitted in writing to the EA-18G EIS
The SGSP would be a source of local agencies to participate in the Project Manager (Code EV21/SS); Naval
renewable power that would provide an scoping process for the preparation of Facilities Engineering Command
energy security service to Schofield this EIS. Interested members may (NA VF AC) Atlantic, 6506 Hampton
Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and participate in scoping meetings, submit Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508, or
Field Station Kunia if loss of service written comments, or both. Written electronically via the project Web site
occurs from the normal sources of comments will be accepted within a 45- (http://www.whidbeyeis.com). All
electricity supporting these day period following the publication of written comments must be postmarked
installations. Any electricity produced the Notice of Intent (NOi) in the Federal or received (online) by January 31, 2014,
from renewable biofuels would also Register. Scoping meetings will be held to ensure they become part of the
help achieve the Army goals of on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii during official record.
producing renewable energy on Army- the first week of February 2014. Dated: January 14, 2014.
owned real property. Notification of the locations and times N.A. Hagerty-Ford,
The SGSP would benefit Hawaiian for the meetings will be published in the
Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate
Electric and the residents of Oahu. It Honolulu Star-Advertiser. General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison
would provide a quick-starting facility Brenda S. Bowen, Officer.
to help maintain grid stability; provide Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 2014-00876 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am]
a facility at a higher elevation and away [FR Doc. 2014-00888 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am) BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
from coastlines; provide a physically BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
secure facility on a military installation;
and makes progress toward the Hawaii DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Renewable Portfolio Standard. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
I he SGSP would operate on a mix of National Board for Education
biofuel and diesel, as required to meet Department of the Navy Sciences; Meeting
Hawaiian Electric's Renewable Portfolio
Reopening and Extending the Public AGENCY: Institute of Education Sciences, ·
Standard and the Army's renewable
energy goals, and may help sustain a Comment Period for the Notice of U.S. Department of Education.
local demand for biofuels. Since the Intent To Prepare an Environmental ACTION: Notice of an open meeting.
SGSP would be multi-fuel capable, it Impact Statement for EA-18G Growler
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the
would be able to run on a combination Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station
schedule and proposed agenda of an
of fuels as necessary to ensure Whidbey Island, Washington
upcoming meeting of the National Board
operations are economically viable and AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. for Education Sciences (NBES). The
can continue under adverse operating notice also describes the functions of
conditions. ACTION: Notice.
the Committee. Notice of this meeting is
The EIS will assess the potential for SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy required by Section lO(a) (2) of the
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects (DoN) is reopening and extending the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is
on the human, natural, and cultural public scoping period for the notice of intended to notify the public of their
environment and identify mitigation intent to prepare an Environmental opportunity to attend the meeting.
measures for any adverse effects. Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G DATES: January 31, 2014.
The EIS will examine two alternative Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
operating scenarios for the proposed Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Standard Time
action. Under the first scenario, the Washington. This notice announces an ADDRESSES: 80 F Street NW., Large
SGSP would run approximately six extension of the public scoping period
hours per day, and consume up to eight Board Room, Washington, DC 20001
until January 31, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellie
million gallons of fuel per year. Under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EA- Pelaez, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW.,
the second scenario, the SGSP would
operate seven days a week and 24 hours 18G EIS Project Manager (Code EV21/ Room 600 E, Washington, DC 20208;
per day, and would consume up to 31.5 SS); Naval Facilities Engineering phone: (202) 219-0644; fax: (202) 219-
million gallons of fuel per year. Command (NAVF AC) Atlantic, 6506 1402; email: Ellie.Pelaez@ed.gov.
The EIS will analyze a No Action Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Alternative, as prescribed by the 23508. National Board for Education Sciences
Council on Environmental Quality SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On is authorized by Section 116 of the
(CEQ) regulations, to serve as the September 5, 2013 (78 FR 54635), the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

Press Releases 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
Public Affairs Office
Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command
Press 1562 Mitscher Avenue,
Suite 250
Norfolk, Va. 23551-2487
Release (757) 836-3600
Fax: (757) 836-3601

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Press Release – 45-13


September 5, 2013

Navy to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Growler


Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island
The Navy has announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-
18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Wash. The
EIS will evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G Growler airfield
operations at NAS Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including
the proposed introduction of two additional expeditionary Electronic Attack (VAQ) squadrons and the
addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS).
There are two distinct components to the VAQ community: the Carrier Air Wing Fleet VAQ
squadrons and the Expeditionary VAQ squadrons. Each has the same mission but they differ in where
they deploy (on board aircraft carriers for the Fleet VAQ squadrons versus land based VAQ squadrons).
Expeditionary VAQ squadrons do not deploy on aircraft carriers and therefore pilots in these squadrons
do not conduct field carrier landing practice at either Ault Field or OLF Coupeville beyond an initial
qualification during training in the FRS.
A scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues to be addressed
in the EIS. As part of the public involvement during scoping the Navy will host three open house
information sessions on the following dates: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School
(Commons Area), 501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Wash.; Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak
Harbor High School (Student Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Wash.; and Thursday,
December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School (Cafeteria), 2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Wash. 98221.
All of these meetings will take place from 4 p.m. – 8 p.m.
The meetings will be conducted in an open house format with informational displays and
materials available for public review. There will be no formal presentations. Navy staff will be present to
answer general questions on the proposed action and the EIS process.
To be included on the Navy’s mailing list for the EIS (or to receive a CD copy of the Draft EIS
once it is prepared), interested individuals should submit an e-mail request to WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil or a
written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager (Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508.
-USN-
Public Affairs Office
Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command
Press 1562 Mitscher Avenue,
Suite 250
Norfolk, Va. 23551-2487
Release (757) 836-1959
Fax: (757) 836-3601

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Press Release – 28-14


July 25, 2014

Navy to Analyze New Growler Alternatives


As has been recently reported, Congress is considering authorizing and appropriating funds so the U.S.
Navy may procure EA-18G Growler aircraft. While it is unclear whether more Growlers will ultimately
be procured, the Navy has decided to be proactive in analyzing the potential growth in the Growler
inventory in order to ensure full transparency with the public and local community. Therefore, U.S. Fleet
Forces Command has been directed to incorporate additional force structure alternatives for the Navy's
Electronic Attack community at NAS Whidbey Island into the ongoing Environmental Impact Statement.

Fleet Forces Command is currently evaluating how this potential change may affect the scope and timing
of the ongoing EIS. Once this information is available, the Navy will provide it to the public.

The number of Growlers in the Navy inventory, and the number ultimately based at NAS Whidbey Island,
will depend on how many, if any, are funded by Congress. The Navy is developing a variety of force
structure alternatives, and these alternatives will be made public as part of the NEPA process.

-USN-
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

Newspaper Advertisements 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

Anacortes American 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION

sTATEOF uJMA/nqfy1
' (/

COUNTYOF 5Jc~
CITY OF
'
/12~ //erno/l-

I, ~l! Sc/z«J!;{ ,
being duly sworn on oath
now and duringalltimes1erein stated, have been the publisher and designated agent of
the publication known as,

_/1rz~_(1_C0_(_(eLJ_~fkmr;~
__I C (
_ V )
_ t / __' _ ("Publication")

And have full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:

Notary Public

April 2011
~~~~~ --------·---------·-·· -····---~-
J

AS Anacortes American Wednesday, September 11, 2013 goanacortes.com

Obituaries
made friends easily, had a 1944. They had six chi l- Anacortes, WA and the San MarJean Long, Judy Thomp- tu ring from 1976 to 2001,
Gregory Todd wonderful sense of humor dren. Juan Islands. To share mem- son; grandchildren, Rachel he led the design and
Morlan and was loved by everyone. She was a graduate of ories of Evelyn, please sign Russell, Jonathan Knokey, manufacturing of process
It is with great sorrow He had a great love for ani- Cedar Crest. College and the online guest register at Samantha Thompson, Jenna machinery that remains the
that beloved family and mals and rescued many. held a Library degree from www.evanschapel.com Thompson; great-grand- world standard today.
friends mourn the pass- In lieu of flowers dona- Drexel. While living in chi ldren, Cade Russell and He will be missed by
ing of Gregory Todd Mor- tions may be made to .the Anacortes, Evelyn worked Avary Knokey. his family and friends and
lan, age 56, of Ocean Park, ASPCA. as a cataloger for the Ana- Gene wi 11 be rem em- remembered for his energy,
Wa., on August 18, 2013. cortes Public Library and Eugene Rae Knokey bered for his commitment humor, warmth, and empa-
Survived by spouse Mary later for the Bellingham Feb 25, 1929 - Aug. 22, 2013 to family, innovations he thy.
Majerle Morlan, stepson Public Library from which brought to the. plywood In today's society we
Jeremy Engstrom, parents
Evelyn S. Legg she retired in 1979. industry, skill as a wood are quick to be critical;
Jim and Shirley Morlan of Sept.5,1913 - Aug. 30,2013 She was an avid reade·r boat builder (building 30 however, my family firm-
Anacortes, Wa, brother Jef- and an accomplished pia- wood boats from 10 to 50 ly believes we should be
frey Morlan and wife Col- nist. She enjoyed attend- feet both sail and power), quicker to praise. My fam-
leen of White Rock, BC, ing community theater and custom furniture designer, ily would like to thank the
Canada, niece Naomi Mor- concerts, and working in and love for things boat- staff and owners of Randy's
lan of London, England, her garden. ing. Gene was a passionate Pier 61 for their profession-
Aunt and Uncle Audrey Evelyn was preceded in boater and loved the San . alism and accommodation
and George Thayer of Rath- death by Byron, her hus- Juan Islands and adventures in helping the family plan
drum, Idaho, In-laws Pam band of 50 years, her son to all scenic stops along the and implement a "celebra-
and Ed Majerle of Duvall, Byron and her daughter Born in Aberdeen, WA, northwest coast of Canada. tion of the life of our father,
Wa, numerous cousins and Virginia. She is survived by Eugene passed August 22 He began his profession- Eugene Knokey'' on August
cherished friends. daughters Patricia, Priscil- in Mount Vernon, WA. For al career building and man- 31.
Greg attended Shadle Evelyn was a longtime la, Fritzi, Mary, and three the past 25 years Gene aging plywood plants. From The event was a great
Park High School in Spo- resident of Anacortes hav- grandchildren. and Marjorie, his wife of this experience, he gained success as a result of all
kane, Wa. He was a gifted ing moved here in 1956. No service is planned. 64 yea rs, resided in Ana- knowledge of the industry thos·e affi I iated with Ran-
guitarist and was a central Born Evelyn Strouse in Arrangements are in the cortes, WA. "Gene" is sur- need for modern plywood dy's Pier 61. Thank you so
part of the music scene in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, care of Evans Funeral Cha- vived by his wife, Marj; process machinery. As vice much for all your efforts on
Seattle for many years. He she married Byron Legg in pel and Crematory, Inc., children, Alan Knokey, president of Coe Manufac- our behalf.

t-ourteen 51<ag1t drivers arrested during DOI empfias1s


The results are in from In Skagit County, the Washington Traffic Safety Family Life Assembly
the recent Drive Sober
or Get Pulled Over DUI
Anacortes, Burlington,
Mount Vernon, Sedro-
Commission.
These patrols are impor-
ofGod J/~ '--'
·
enforcement campaign Woolley and Swinomish tant because August is one Passionately loving God ...
conducted from Aug. 16 police departments, the of the deadliest months on You're i111 ited to join us
1
Genuinely loving people.
through Sept. 2. In Skagit Skagit County Sheriff's Washington's roadways. for a joyous time of study,
County, preliminary num- Office and the Washington These and all extra SUNDAY SCHEDULE
ll'Orship and praise! 9:15 AM • Life
bers show that 14 motorists State Patrol participated in patrols are part of Target Development Classes
were stopped and a:gested the extra DUI patrols, with Zero - striving to end 9:00am-10:lSam
for driving under the influ- the support of the Skagit traffic deaths and serious Traditional 10:30 AM • Celebration
ence of alcohol or drugs, County Traffic Safety Task injuries in Washington by Worship Senice Service
and statewide, law enforce- Force. 2030. • Nursery & Toddler Care ALIVE YOUTH MINISTRY
ment officers arrested The extra patrols were For more infonµation (Fellowship period Middle School and High School
1,420 drivers for DUL funded by a grant from the visit www.targetzero.com. between the services) 6:30 PM Wednesday
11:00am-12:lSpm OTHER PROGRAMS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Contemporary
Worship Semce
Nursery Care
Preschool Programs
• AduJt Sunday Classes Kids Programs
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY • Children's Church Youth Programs
• Nursery & Toddler Care Young @ Heart (Seniors)
Men's Activities
Ministries for Families,
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Women's Bible Study
Children, Youth, Men,
(EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air
Women and Seniors 293-2219
Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington.
2717 J Ave.• 360-293-5300 1617 29th Street
www.anacortesfbc.com Anacortes
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA- 18G
Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey
Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will evaluate the
ST.MARY
potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G
Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island's Ault Field
CATIIOLIC CHURCH
and Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the DAILY MASS
proposed introduction of two additional expeditionary squadrons Tues-Sat, 9am • Saturday, 5pm
and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement squadron Sunday, 8am & 10:30am
(FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental
analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 4001 St. Mary's Drive, Anacortes
(NEPA) for the replacement of the EA- 6B Prowler aircraft with 360-293-2101
the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island. '

The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns


and local issues to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house
information sessions will be held between 4:00 p.m. and 8 : 00
p.m. on the following dates:

• Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons


Area), 501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239;
•Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student
Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277;
and
•Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School
(Cafeteria), 2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221.

The meetings will be an open house format with informational


displays and materials available for public review. There
will be no formal presentations. Navy staff will be present to .. - · - - -,ezJ""" _.,..-.-.-=-~~".'"':
.. _-_1111!!1±!""''-. ..
'
,,I - answer general questions on the action and the EIS process. Jsf·and ~w School -- =
~ --'=
To be included on the Navy's mailing list for the EIS (or to - = -· 2501 J Avenue . .:. /E_;J
receive a CD copy of the Draft EIS), submit an electronic
request through the project email address, WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil
or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager (Code
EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)
Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508 . - '.:;

,
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

Journal San Juan Islands 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
Affidavit - Journal of the San Juan
Islands - 11.27.2013

.Affidavit of Publication.

STATE OF WASHINGTON

County of San Juan

The undersigned, being first dul) sworn, says on oath that she is the
principal clerk of THE JOURNAL OF THE SAN JUAN ISLANDS, a
week I) newspaper approved as a legal newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for San Juan County; that
said newspaper is now and has been published in the English language
continuously as a weekly in J.riday Harbor for six months pri0r to the
first date of publication of the notice hereto attached; that said
f2 t,.,\o \ i L tru..L':b'O ~ ____ _

is a true copy and was published by her in o::y\ c _


su cessive c o ~ said paper on the following dates:
0 fl1, ,90/3
~ -- ·- ~ ~ ~-
and was printed in full in said newspaper and not in
supplement thereof.

That the publication cost thereof the sum of$_..d..~.Y .. ~ -~


and has been paid in full at the rate of $~1.lt.k_ _ _ per
column inch for each inse1tion.

l)~;~~J'f°'?i tl,;s ___ _l \*"'-'~day qf


- Arµn().£lL _& ~
Notary Puhlit in andfh r
The State of Washington
r(:'siding at Friday Harb01; U:-1
4 — Wednesday, September 11, 2013 From Page One The Journal of the San Juan Islands | SanJuanJournal.com

!
Excessive
Excessive exposure
exposure
linkedtotoincreased community
increased community
to Journal
to The The Journal
engagement
engagement
has been linked
has been
and and overall
personal awesomeness.
overall personal awesomeness.
Pot shop in Friday Harbor?
Councilwoman Barbara Starr expressed
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Most of downtown off-limits due her view that marijuana stores not be per-
mitted in residential neighborhoods, a con-
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
to distance ban from school sites cern allayed when town attorney Adina
Cunningham pointed out that the proposed
The Friday Harbor Town Council briefly regulations require that police have access
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G discussed the prospect of retail marijuana
Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, to retail stores without U.S. constitutional
stores in light of the state Liquor Control Fourth Amendment impediments which
Washington. Board proposed rules issued Sept. 4. apply to private residences.
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent to prepare an Because siting a retail pot store with- Cunningham told the council she needed
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations in 1,000 feet of schools and other public to review the latest proposed amendments
at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will facilities is prohibited, much of downtown and would offer the council a briefing of
evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G Friday Harbor could be off-limits for retail the new state law and "the pros and cons"
Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Land- pot stores, according to a memorandum on various alternative zoning amendments
ing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the proposed introduction of two additional and town map prepared by Mike Bertrand, at a later council meeting.
expeditionary squadrons and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement town land use administrator.
— Steve Wehrly
Squadron (FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the replacement
of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft with the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS
Whidbey Island. Three: park, public transit center,
or library.
export from Washington
will be illegal.
Continued from page 1 “I think when people map The state’s Office of
The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues out the 1,000 foot setback Financial Management fis-
to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house information sessions will be held ance for projected con- from schools and parks, the cal impact statement places
between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the following dates: sumption. Under the LCB areas where a retail store a price estimate of a $3 per
proposal, King County will may go will be quite limit- gram producer price, a $6
• Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons Area), have 61 stores, Snohomish ed,” Gaylord said of the set- per gram processor price
501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239; County 35 stores, Skagit back. “With few locations, and a pre-tax $12 per gram
• Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student it will be easier to assure average retail purchase
Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277; and County 10 and Whatcom
• Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School (Cafeteria), County 15. Neither growers marijuana is not distributed price. Estimates of state
2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221. nor processors are permit- to or used by minors.” revenue generation from
ted to be licensed as mari- Advertising and display all sources, including 25
The meetings will be an open house format with informational displays and juana retailers. If more than of marijuana in retail loca- percent excise taxes at the
materials available for public review. There will be no formal presentations. one applicant applies for a tions is limited; on-prem- production, processing and
Navy staff will be present to answer general questions on the action and the EIS license in a given jurisdic- ises consumption, or even retail levels, range up to $2
process. tion, licenses will be award- opening of packages, will billion in the first five years
ed on a lottery basis. not be permitted. Retail of retail sales.
To be included on the Navy’s mailing list for the EIS (or to receive a CD copy of Siting of retail locations, packages will be limited to The County Council put
the Draft EIS), submit an electronic request through the project email address, like the siting of liquor one ounce of “useable mari- the matter on their agen-
WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager stores, will be subject to juana”, 16 ounces of solid da for discussion with the
(Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506 public comment and to a marijuana-infused products prosecutor and sheriff at 2
Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508. setback of 1,000 feet from a or 72 ounces of marijuana- p.m. on Sept. 24.
school, playground, public infused liquid. Gaylord would not say
Combination public whether local governments
retail stores and medi- could ban placement of
All products limited to

Your
cal marijuana stores will stores in San Juan County
stock on hand!
FRIDAY HARBOR not be permitted. Non- by ordinance, but did say,

for
Effective residents will be permit- “I will be closely following

S tor e September 11 –
September 17, 2013
ted to purchase and use
marijuana in the state, but
what is happening in other
communities.”

a lu e!
V
Store Hours:
Mon.-Sat. 8 am-6 pm
Closed Sundays
Washington, New Crop Foster Farms Hunts Snack Pack Western Family
Sweet Ripe Boneless, Skinless Selected Varieties Selected Varieties

Peaches or Chicken 4 pack Cream


Nectarines Breast Puddings Cheese
SAVE $1.48 SAVE
$1.51 lb.
$3.18 SAVE
UP TO 10/$10 SAVE
UP TO 4/$5
.80¢ lb. lb. lb.
$5.90 4-3.25 oz. $2.96 8 oz.

Jumbo Beef Ocean Spray Lean Cuisine


Selected Varieties Selected Varieties Tharald Historic Homestead
Kiet Shoulder 100% Entrees Shaw Island
Mangos Roast Juice Viewing and Historical Talk
SAVE
UP TO
$3.64
3/$5 SAVE
$1.50 lb.
$3.48 SAVE
UP TO
$2.98
2/$6 SAVE
UP TO
$1.58
2/$5 Saturday, September 14,
lb. 64 oz. 6-10 oz. 1:00 – 3:30 p.m.
Snow White All Natural Kashi Wine
Bone In Pork Selected Varieties Selected Varieties The Tharald Homestead is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places and protected by an
Cauliflowers Country Go Lean Viu Maneut Historic Preservation Easement held by the
Style Ribs Cereal San Juan County Land Bank.

SAVE
UP TO
$2.98
2/$3 SAVE
$1.50 lb.
$1.98
lb.
SAVE
UP TO
$1.98
2/$6
13.1-14 oz.
SAVE
$2.01
$5.48
750 mL
For more information & to register, email:
mulnocove@gmail.com or call Boyd Pratt 378-7172
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

Skagit Valley Herald 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION

STATE OF

COUNTY OF S/cO!jJ;
CITY OF ~- V€rM/I

I, ~ s~ ,
being duly sworn on oath
now and during all times herein stated, have been the publisher and designated agent of
the publication known as,

_s_t~
__·_t1d!ey_----/--//e12~Wt_tl__ ("Publication")

And have full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:

The insert for -=-_,__Jt_.-.+-+~...,_--;<-........::..;;;_--+.J--- ("Ad/Advertiser) with Insertion Order


No. d~cl was distributed to the Publication's full
circulation on the ---,.i,-,-L-L-day o f----""'-=flL-!'--=-'="'--""~-' 2011_.

April 2011
Skagit Valley Herald
LOCAL
News Desk: 360-416-2143 / news@skagitpublishing.com
Friday, September 6, 2013 A3

MV man gets four )'ears for store burglary


By KIMBERLY CAUVEL a business neighboring the len items were sold there. Bolf's an in-custody treatment alternative.
@Kimberly_SVH antique shop, according to court name was found in the sale records, Judge Michael Rickert said
On the beat MOUNT VERNON - Mount
documents. On May 5, he report-
ed to police that he discovered
according to court documents.
Bolf initially pleaded not
Bolf has a significant criminal his-
tory with 25 previous felony con-
Here is a small sampling Vernon resident Mark Bolf was broken windows at the shop on guilty to four separate felony victions racked up since his early
of recent calls made to law sentenced to 50 months in prison his way home early that morning. charges related to the burglary, 20s and said this treatment-based
enforcement in the area: and 25 months in community cus- The owners of the shop calcu- but changed his plea Aug. 8 to sentence is likely his last chance
tody for first-degree possession lated nine items worth a total of reduced charges as part of a plea to avoid life in prison.
BURGLARY
A Mount Vernon of stolen property in connection $1,970 were missing. deal.
woman reported Tuesday with a burglary that he originally Several days later, an antique The state Department of Cor- • Reporter Kimberly Cauvel: 360-
that her home on Nathan reported to police at Mount Ver- shop owner in Tacoma reported rections also determined Bolf has 416-2199, kcauvel@skagitpublish-
Lane had been burglarized non's Good Old Days Antiques. seeing information on the burglary mental health, drug and alcohol ing.com, Twitter: @Kimberly_SVH,
while she was gone during Bolf, 53, lived in a room behind in the news and believed the sto- problems and may be eligible for facebook.com/bykimberlycauvel
the past week. She came
home to find her sliding
glass door open and two
television sets missing.
Meanwhile, a "watchful REGION
neighbor" told Skagit
County sheriff's deputies
they had seen a younger
male - who lived in the
NATURE'S BOUNTY BRIEFLY
Compiled from staff reports
and news services
area - at the victim's
anytbing1iad been taken, - - - - ---i - - - - - - -

but Capt. John Small Glenn and Kenan Adams-


surmised the digging duo Kinard, both 16, beat
Delbert Belton to death
may have been after scrap
metal. Aug. 22 while he sat in his
car. Investigators found
FRAUD Glenn's prints on the exte-
A bank on Riverside Scott Terrell / Skagit Valley Herald rior rear driver's side door
Drive in Mount Vernon and the interior of the rear
Bruce Denton of Anacortes harvests Gravenstein apples Thursday from a demonstration orchard at
called police Wednesday to driver's side passenger
the Washington State University Northwestern Research and Extension Center in Mount Vernon.
report that someone had door andAdams-Kinard's
· Denton is a member volunteer of the Western Washington Fruit Research Foundation that supports
cashed a check that had and operates the demonstration orchard. They have a weekly work party every Thursday morning.
prints were on the exte-
been altered. The person rior driver's door and the
reportedly changed the interior of the rear driver's
numbers on a legitimate side passenger door,
check to make it for a according to the affidavit.
much larger amount and
then cashed it at the bank.
Bank employees did not DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
discover the altered status CORRECTIONS
of the check until the per-
• We care about accura- Sports section. If you feel an DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
son left, but turned video cy and correct any errors error has been made, please
over to police, who are brought to our attention. call Editor Colette Weeks at
investigating. Corrections are pub- 360-416-2132. Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
- Skagit Valley Herald lished on the Local page (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air
for any errors except
staff
those involving the Schu~rms Station Whidbey Island, Oak Barbor, Washington.

STEVE'S The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent
GRAVENSTEIN to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA- 18G
Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey
APPLES Island , Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will evaluate the
Sweet Corn potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA- 18G
LAST WEEK Growler airfiel d operations at NAS Whidbey Island's Ault Field
PICKLING and Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the
CUCUMBERS proposed introducti on of two additional expeditionary squadrons
$19.95 • 25LB BOX R£LD RUN and the addi tion of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement Squadron
WE SORT FOR ORDERS (FRS). In 2005 and 2012, t he Navy prepared environmental
MOMMY 8: ME: Ages 2 - 2.5 years YAKIMA analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
TOTS: Ages 2.5 - 3.5 years ELBERTA & (NEPA) for the replacement of the EA- 6B Prowler aircraft with
KINDERDANCE: Ages 3.5 - 5 years HALE PEACHES the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island.
All DANCE STYLES AVAILABLE FOR AGES 6 - ADULT BARTLm PEARS The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns
BEGINNER - ADVANCED LEVELS · COMPETITION TEAM OPPORTUNITIES TOMATOES
BY THE Box OR PouND and local issues to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house
CONTACT US AT: 360.424.6677, svad@frontier.com -
OR skagitva lleyacademyofdance.com STILi, AVlllLllBI.E
information sessions will be held between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00
BLUEBERRIES p . m. on the following dates:
BUMBLEBERRY PIE
FRESH SlRAWBERRY SHAKES! S2.75-12oz •Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons
Open 9-6 Daily Area), 501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239;
~It. \'cmon ."\60--l2-l-69S2 •Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student
Stanwood .160-629-6-l:;:; Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277;
and
•Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School
HOME DELIVERY CUSTOMER SERVICE
Educational Services (NIE}
Phone: 360-424-1900 or BOG-683-3300
1215 Anderson Road (P.O. Box 578) 36()416-2182 (Cafeteria), 2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221 .
Hours: 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday, nle@skagitpub!lshlng.com
6 to 11 a.m. Saturday, 7 a.m. to noon Sunday Mount Vernon, WA 98274
HOURS: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday Letters to the Editor
SUGGESTED DELIVERY PRICES
Se>1en-day delivery:
letters@skag1tpub1ishlng.com
For submission guidelines, see Opinion, Page A4. The meetings will be an open house format with informational
$13.25 per month
Save money and time by us!ng Smart Pay or HOW TO REACH US
POSTAL INFORMATION
The Skagit Valley Herald, U.S.P.S. #497700. is
displays and materials available for public review. There
paying ahead. Call 360-424--1900 for details.
Smart Pay costs $12 per month
Mall subscr1ptlons: S26 per month President and Publisher Heather Hernandez
publlshed dally by Skagit Publishing LLC. will be no formal presentations. Navy staff will be present to
36()416-2100 1215 Anderson Road, Mount Vernon, WA 98273.
Digital Edition: S8.75 per month hhemandez@skagltpubllshing.com Perlod1cals postage paid at Mount Vernon, WA, answer general questions on the action and the EIS process .
ClASSIAED ADVERTISING and at additional malling offices.
Phone: 360-424-4567 Editor Colette Weeks POSTMASTER: Send change of address to:
Hours: a a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday.Friday 36()416-2132 P.O. Sox 578, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
MICROACHE AVAILABILITY
cweeks@skagitpubllshlng.com To be included on the Navy's mailing list for the EIS (or to
8 a.m. to 3 p.m. News Department 360416-2160 ABOUT US
Monday-Friday Spc,rtll Department 36()416-2133 Member of Certified Audit or Circulations and receive a CD copy of the Draft EIS), submit an electronic
The Associated Press. No responsibility Is
T£l£PHONE NUMBERS
Main Switchboard .................36()424-3251
sports@skagitpublishlng.com
assumed for errors or omlsslons. request through the project email address, WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil
Toll-hee In Washington .......... 800-683-3300 Photo Department 36()416-2152 Library of Congress: ISSN 1071-197X
Newtroom Switchboard ........ 360416-2160 sterrel1@skagJtpubUshlng.com
AU local advert.fslng becomes the property of the
or a written request to: EA- 18G EIS Project Manager (Code
Fax (newsroom only) ............. 360428-0400
Fax (all other departmenta)..• 360-424-5300
Features Department 360416-2135
features@skagitpubtlshlng.com
newspaper. EV21/SS); Naval Facil ities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)
www.goskaglt.com Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Blvd, Norfolk , VA 23508 .
AB - Saturday, September 7 , 2013 LOCAL I NEWSWATCH Skagit Valley Herald / goskagit.com


PSE nearly done with pole replacements r ·- - - - - - - - - - - - .,

• Skagit Valley Herald staff PSE spokesperson Allison Stanford


said the poles are being replaced to meet
ME~IEEI C:AFE 1

20%
Puget Sound Energy crews have near- the North American Electric Reliability HAPPY HOUR :DISCOUNT:
ly completed replacing 23 power poles Corp. requirements for utilities. She said 1/2 PRICE EVERYDAY Not valid with any other specials
or discounts. Cannot be used on
along Highway 20 between Burlington PSE power systems are engineered to Appetizers & Drinks alcoholic drinks.
and Sedro-Woolley. The work is being meet certain standards based on the line
done at night until mid-morning, 7 p.m. voltage. The work will increase the line
NEW HAPPY HOURS: 2pm - Close
to 6 a.m., with flaggers guiding motorists capacity, reducing the possibility for over- & WE HAVE AIR CONDITIONING!
through the construction zone on one lane loading which could cause outages.
of the highway. Work on the nearly mile- The increased capacity is essential when ME~ESEAFE
long task began in August and is expected consumers are all drawing extra power for Exp. 9/24/13
to be finished by mid-September. winter heating, for example, she said. ------------

NEWSWATCH
Compiled from news services
and staff reports Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air
LOCAL Station Whidbey Island, Oak Barbor, Washington.

MOUNT VERNON The U.S . Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G
Road work set for Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey
earty next week Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will evaluate the
Drivers should expect potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G
delays early next week due Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island's Ault Field
to construction work going and Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the
on in two places. proposed introduction of two additional expeditionary squadrons
On Monday, traffic will and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement Squadron
be limited between 7 a.m. (FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental
and 4 p.m. at the intersec- analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
tion of Digby Lane and (NEPA) for the replacement of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft with
Digby Road while Skagit the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island.
PUD replaces a water line.
Local traffic will be directed The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns
south to East Section Street. and local issues to be addressed in the EIS . Three open house
Blackburn Road will information sessions will be held between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00
be closed for asphalt work p.m . on the following dates :
from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday and Wednesday
between 13th Street and •Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons
Blodgett Road. Area), 501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239;
The Blackburn Road •Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student
work depends on weather Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277;
and could be rescheduled. and
Flaggers and detour •Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School
routes will be on site in both (Cafeteria), 2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221.
places to direct traffic.
Mlchael Penn/ The Juneau Empire via AP The meetings wi ll be an open house format with informational
Stephanie Gustafson holds her two-year-old female cat, displays and materials available for public review . There
NATION Wasabi, after returning from the veterinarian hospital will be no formal presentations. Navy staff will be present to
Thursday in Juneau, Alaska. The cat survived a fall from answer general questions on the action and the EIS process.
PHOENIX the 11th floor of her apartment building.
To be included on the Navy's mailing list for the EIS (or to
Woman released named Wasabi, survived but fighters on high alert. receive a CD copy of the Draft EIS), submit an electronic
from death row suffered a fractured leg and Lebanon and Syria share request through the project email address, WhidbeyEIS @navy.mil
An Arizona woman broken bones. a complicated history and a or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager (Code
who spent more than two The Juneau Empire web of political and sectar- EV21/SS) ·; Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)
decades on death row was reports the cat was chasing i~ ti~s ~nd rivalries. Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508.
released on bond Friday the mosquito Monday in
after a judge ruled there's her owners' apartment in
no direct evidence link- Juneau.
ing her to the death of her The mosquito escaped
young son, other than a out a window, and Wasabi
purported confession to a went after it. Stephanie
detective whose honesty Gustafson says her mother
has been questioned. watched the female cat fall.
Debra Milke walked out Wasabi landed in a park-
of the Maricopa County ing lot, and Gustafson
Sheriff's jail after support- found her huddled nearby,
ers posted $250,000 bond. bloody and wet from rain.
The 9th Circuit Court The cat underwent an
of Appeals overturned her operation and has pins and
conviction in March, stat- wires holding together her
ing that prosecutors should fractured leg and broken
have disclosed information bones in a joint.
that cast doubt on the cred-
ibility of a since-retired
detective who said Milke
confessed.
The 49-year-old Milke BEIRUT
WORLD
MELL'S BELLES
has not been exonerated,
but a judge said she could U.S. orders diplomats
Saturday, September 21
g~ free while preparing for · to leave Lebanon
a new trial in a case that
made her one of Arizona's The State Department FREE SI-IOW!
most reviled inmates. ordered all non-essential
U.S. personnel Friday to
JUNEAU, ALASKA leave Lebanon, reflecting
fears that an American-led
Cat survives 11-story would on strike neighboring Syria
unleash more blood-
fall from aparbnent shed in this already fragile
A house cat in Alaska nation.
learned the hard way not · The Lebanese govern-
to chase mosquitoes after ment's top security body
following one out a window held an emergency meet-
and falling 11 stories. ing and the Shiite militant
The 2-year-old cat, group Hezbollah put its

WMISK.EV RIVER
Skagit Valley Herald
LOCAL
News Desk: 360-416-2143 / news@skagitpublishing.com
Sunday, September 8, 2013 A3

Smoking
Salmon fest swims through Skagit train blocks
Celebration brings traffic at MV
conservation groups •
together, seeks to crossing
educate community By DANIEL DeMAY
@Daniel_SVH
Story by DANIEL DeMAY A train engine caught
Photos by NICK GONZALES fire Friday evening, block-
Skag~ Valley Herald
ing traffic for at least an
hour at the Blackburn

M
OUNTVERNON Road and South Second
- If th~re's one Street crossing in Mount
thing folks up and Vernon.
down the Skagit River Mount Vernon Fire
know, it's salmon. Chief Roy Hari said the
Whether they're out fishing second of four engines
for them or trying to save the started smoking from the
fish's native habitat, people liv- cab as the third-mile-long
ing along the river are tied to southbound Burlington
the salmon, according to the Northern Santa Fe train
folks who organized a festival passed through Burlington

'
Colleen Snilley,-who coordi- that are natural partners." ·error has been made, pTease
Festival. Festival director Colleen Smiley said 30 conservation Though only half-way through call Editor Colette Weeks at
nated this and last year's events, groups were present and she anticipated about 5,000 people 360-416-2132.
said she was happy to be able this year's event, Ertel said he
would attend, around 2,000 more than last year.
to put on the free event to help expected to go bigger next year.
educate people about the river "There's opportunity for this
and its surrounding habitat.
"This is really special because
some kind of educational game spreading the word about the
or demonstration aimed at group's Cascades Wild cam-
to be a.big event," he said. "All
the partners have committed
CONTINUE
of how it's bringing our com- attracting kids to learn about paign to protect the headwaters to the long run and want to see THE CYCLE
munity together," Smiley said. salmon, the Skagit River and of rivers that often begin on the this thing continue."
"All the conservation groups, the habitat around it from its west slopes of the North Cas- Beyond spreading informa- PLEASE
people are having fun, the kids
are having a blast. It doesn't get
mouth all the way up into the
Cascades.
cades. She said the size of this
event surprised her.
tion about conservation, the day
also included a silent auction for
RECYCLE THIS
any better." Christine Scheele, with Wash- "The conservation aspect is artistically painted rain barrels, NEWSPAPER
Almost every booth had ington Wild of Seattle, was much bigger than I expected," pony rides and a beer garden.

OLYMPIA DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


REGION BRIEFLY Family sues business DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Compiled from staff reports and news services partner after tractor death
The Rochester family of a 3-year-old who
PSE plans night closure of died when he was run over May 26, 2011, Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
Highway 20 in Sedro-Woolley by a tractor being driven by his 7-year-old (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air
Puget Sound Energy plans to close a brother is suing a former business partner Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington.
· section of Highway 20 in Sedro-Woolley for failing to supervise the children.
between Ferry and F&S Grade roads from The Olympian reports the wrongful death The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent
7 p.m. to 6 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 10, to com- lawsuit has been filed by Christopher and to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA- 18G
plete the removal of the abandoned high Randi Decker in Thurston County Superior Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey
voltage conductors. PSE and other utilities Court. It names Jacob Huff and his wife as Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will evaluate the
have been relocating overhead utility lines defendants. potential environmental . effects associated with ongoing EA-18G
as work continues on the SR20/Cook Road The younger boy had been riding on the Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island's Ault Field
Realignment Project. tractor when he fell off and was run over. and Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the
proposed introduction of two additional expeditionary squadrons
and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement Squadron
(FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental
analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for the replacement of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft with
the newer EA- 18G Growler aircraft at NAS Whidbey Island.

The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns


and local issues to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house
information sessions will be held between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00
p.m. on the following dates:

•Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons


Area) , 501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239;
•Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student
Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277;
and
•Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School
HOME OEUVERY CUSTOMER SERVICE
Phone: 360-424--1.900 or SOo-683-3300
1215 Anderson Road (P.O. Box 578)
EducatJonal Services (NIE)
360-416-2182 ·
(Cafeteria), 2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221.
Hours: 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday, n!e@skagitpublishlng.com
6 to 11 a.m. Saturday, 7 a.m. to noon Sunday Mount Vernon, WA 98274
HOURS: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday,Frlday Letters to the Editor
SUGGESTED DELIVERY PRICES
Seven~ay dellvery:
letters@skag1tpublishing.com
For submission guidelines, see Opinion, Page A4.
The meetings will be an open house format with informational
$13.25 per month
Save money and time by using Smart Pay or HOW TO REACH US
, POSTAL INFORMATION displays and materials available for public review. There
paying ahead. Call 360-424-1900 for details. The Skagit Valley Hera!d, U.S.P.S. #497700, ls
Smart Pay costs S12 per month President and Publlsher Heather Hernandez
published dall)I by Skagit Publishing LLC. will be no formal presentations. Navy staff will be present to
Malt subscriptions: S26 per month 1215 Anderson Road, Mount Vernon, WA 98273.
Digital Edition: SB.75 per month
360-416-2100
hhernandez@skagitpublishlng.com Periodicals postage paid at Mount Vernon, WA, answer general questions. on the action and the EIS process.
CLASS1F1ED ADVERTISING
and at addltional mailing offices.
Editor Colette Weeks POSTMASTER: Send ctiange of address to:
Phone: 36o-424-4S67
360416-2132 P.O. Box 578, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday
MICROFICHE AVAILABILITY
cwee ks@skagltpubl!shing.com To be included on the Navy's mailing list for the EIS (or to
News Department 360416--2160
8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Monday.Friday Sports Oepartment 360-416-2133
ABOUT US
Member of Certified Audit of Clrcuratlons and receive a CD copy of the Draft EIS), submit an electronic
The Associated Press. No responslbillty ls
TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Main Switchboard .................360424-3251
sports@skagltpub!ishlng1com
assumed for errors or omissions. request through the project email address, WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil
Photo Department 360416-2152
TolHree In Washington ..........SOQ.683-3300
Newsroom Switchboard ........ 360416-2160 sterrell@skagitpublishing.com
Ubrary of Congress: ISSN 1071-197X or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager (Code
Al l local advertising becomes the property of the
Fax (newsroom only) .............360-428-0400
Fax (all other departments) ••• 360-424-5300
Features Department 36041.6-2135 newspaper. EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)
features@skagitpublishing.com
www.goskaglt.com
Atlantic, 6506 Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508.

..
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

South Whidbey Record 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
Affidavit - Whidbey News Times and South
Whidbey Record - 11.23.2013 and 11.30.2013

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF


THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF ISLAND
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

In the Matter of Public Meeting - - - - - - - -- - - - -

STATE OF WASHINGTON
SS.
COUNTY OF ISLAND

The undersigned, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is
principal clerk of the WHIDBEYNEWS-TIMES/SOUTHWHIDBEY RECORD
a bi-weekly newspaper. That said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by the Superior Court of Island County and it is now and has
been for more than six months prior to the date of publication herein after
referred to, published in the English language continually as a bi-weekly
newspaper in Island County, Washington, and it is now and during all
of the said time was printed in an office maintained by said newspaper.

That the annexed is a true copy of all advertisement, with


publication dates, as it was published in regular issues (and not in
supplemental fonn) of said newspaper commencing with the issue of

November 23, and ending with the issue of November 30, 2013

That said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during


all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing
publication is the sum of$ 1345.68

........ ~~.. ~tr?4?.l~~.......................................


Subscribed and sworn to me this /3 day of
,,,,,,,,,,,, D<-c~h--OV" 70·1:3>
/~~~o~:;~fl~
~ (.) ··~~
-..
: f •a,
c't!!)~········ · · · · · ·
u
~u>'•
-.
,
-
NO~;'y Pu~ic in ! d for the State of Washington Residing at Oak Harbor
:
=. '"\
:
?
ual\C : z
!• ,-....,,.
,0: P.O.
=
WHIDBEY NEWSPAPER GROUP
BOX 1200
- ' V "· •o ..._
, :..>, •.. '<>,~· (!) ~ Coupeville, WA 98239
',.., f >.. •••• 3/111i~;·:)._,~ ~
,, / ~ •••ecoo """-'"' '
~~~, OF Wfi..S ,,,,,
'''''""''''
Wednesday, September 11, 2013 • The South Whidbey Record WWW.SouThWhiDbeyRecoRD.com Page A7

More letters
used and enjoyed by all chil- but seemingly a foreign con- with fresh ideas and give operations” do not include the tions,” as if their existence at
leTTeRS dren. Realizing that funding cept here. I pushed for years them the ability to imple- operation of the Growlers at NASWI is a foregone conclu-
CONTINUED FROM A6 is always an issue, I would for the Port of South Whidbey ment them — not just sched- NASWI. sion and part of the status quo.
encourage the commission to demand proof that grant ule another meeting, decide A bit of history is helpful. Wrong. Our suit challenges
free-loading corporations and to explore one of the many money, tax dollars, was spent who will bring refreshments In 2005, the Navy proposed the flawed assessment and the
the mega rich for another grant opportunities for adap- to actually bring new busi- or form another blue ribbon stationing the Growlers at decision to bring the Growlers
time — is basically approval tive play. ness to Whidbey. Two years committee. NASWI. They prepared to NASWI in the first instance.
LYNN NORMAN ago they wrote new rules ED JENKINS a fraudulent environmen- While the notice of intent to
of the drying up of such fed- Langley Clinton
eral funding as Fred and the for grants asking for this tal assessment, the 2005 do an environmental impact
data. What happened? Only Environmental Assessment, statement has been filed by
Regional Transportation and Economic forum one group, the Farm Tour, OLF debated claiming the jets at Outlying the Navy, the process is just
Planning Organization were
actually gathered such data Field would be less loud than beginning. The scoping of the
able to obtain.
If we collectively want to Forum needs more but the port happily doled Anti-airstrip group the EA-6Bs they were replac- EIS is the next big round of
sustain and perhaps even
improve our standard of liv-
than planning out our tax dollars anyway.
Understanding and integrat- won’t quit now ing and they would be flying
fewer operations at Outlying
activity and we are very well
poised and prepared to weigh
ing here on Whidbey Island, Editor, ing demographic information Editor, Field, or OLF, both blatant into that process in a big way
we had better get busy and When I read that Langley from every event is not dif- The Navy has announced it misrepresentations. with our capable attorneys
rid the U.S. Congress of those was forming another commit- ficult but vital. Sharing this will prepare an Environmental We all know now that the and expert witnesses.
who seek the opposite. tee to look for ways to increase data island-wide is also key to Impact Statement, or EIS, Growlers are louder and We will be insisting that the
business I was reminded of a understand who visits, why on the addition of yet more that flight operations steadily Navy go back to that much
GENE KOFFKIN
Clinton Yogi Berra quote, “It’s like they come, would they come new planes at Whidbey increased at OLF until they earlier decision in 2005 to
deja-vu, all over again.” back and if not, why. Island Naval Air Station, as were up over 300 percent in bring the Growlers to NASWI.
Park plan It has been said that a These committee groupies well as “baseline operations at 2012 and well on their way We will not be dismissing our
camel is a horse designed by seem happy to see Whidbey NASWI and OLF Coupeville.” to even a larger number of lawsuit until the Navy com-
Don’t forget special a committee. This is the same
group that has held countless
as a summer-only destination
with no desire to tie in every
The key words are “base-
line operation.” Very clearly, as
operations in 2013 until we
filed the federal suit and they
plies with the law in every
detail.
needs at parks meetings, study groups, focus
groups or whatever the buzz-
business together.
Whidbey should and can
those words pertain to our fed-
eral suit, they do not include
shut down for the remainder
of 2013.
COER will also be seeking
injunctive relief to prevent any
Editor, word of the day is and all we be a year-round destina- EA-18Gs at Naval Air Station Using their fraudulent 2005 use of OLF until a full dis-
I read with interest end up with are more camels. tion for visitors. I believe we Whidbey Island, or NASWI. assessment, the Navy claimed closure is made in the EIS
that Langley’s Parks and Where has it gotten need to brand Whidbey as The Citizens of Ebey’s there were no impacts from of all impacts upon humans,
Open Space Commission Langley or South Whidbey? “Whidbey for All Seasons, Reserve’s, or COER’s, suit the transition to the Growlers animals, the environment, the
is planning an upgrade Clinton businesses that want- Where Memories are Made addresses the impacts of the and made the decision to base Ebey’s Reserve, property val-
to Generation Park/ ed to survive have retreated and Traditions are Born.” An decision to bring the Growlers them at NASWI. This envi- ues, etc. with a scientifically
Playground. In these days of to Ken’s Korner where the island wide strategic plan is to NASWI in the first instance, ronmental assessment and and truthfully researched EIS
iPads, electronic games, TV, synergy of shared traffic has simple and in less than two the subject of the seriously decision is what we challenge under the watchful eyes of the
movies and so many tempt- paid off. Lower Clinton has years could double the visi- flawed 2005 Environmental now in Federal Court. The courts and COER.
ing static play options, it is become a ghost town, the tors year round. This would Assessment. Our position Navy is trying to bootstrap the KEN PICKARD,
wonderful to watch children result of several people mak- provide jobs and most impor- very clearly is that “baseline Growlers into “baseline opera- chairman
playing outside in a well-kept ing a living pushing Clinton tantly sales tax revenue to bol- COER
playground. I commend the as a tourist stop. ster our shaky county budget.
commission for its work and It is not that difficult to None of this is new and one
commitment to the commu- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
bring tourists to Langley and only needs look at Disneyland
nity. Whidbey. After all we live and how they approach visi-
I would like to encourage DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
in one of the most beautiful tors and the customer expe-
them to provide “play for all” places around and are a short rience here. The long ferry
in all playgrounds. There is Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G
drive for a huge number of lines are a potential down side Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor,
nothing sadder than seeing people looking for a respite to visit the island, but simple
a special needs child visit a
Washington.
from city life. What is sorely changes would change a
playground where there lacking in every group, com- negative to a positive experi- The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent to prepare an
is nothing they can use. A mittee or government entity ence. Portable toilets at sev- Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations
good beginning would be that has announced “we have eral locations along the line at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will
the inclusion of at least one a solution” is a long-term strat- would be a blessed relief to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G
adaptive swing in each play- egy that ties many businesses many. Having entertainers at Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Land-
ground. This swing can be together so all prosper. safe places along the wait lane ing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the proposed introduction of two additional
used by a disabled child but Another concept that I would make it a fun time for expeditionary squadrons and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement
also by a child too small for have been pushing for years everyone and especially fami- Squadron (FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental analyses
many swings. There is a is statistical record gathering lies with children. The ideas pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the replacement
wide variety of adaptive-play and targeted marketing. and possibilities are endless. of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft with the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS
equipment which can be Folks, this is Business 101 It is time to recruit people
Whidbey Island.
The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues
to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house information sessions will be held
between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the following dates:
• Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons Area),
501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239;
• Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student
Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277; and
• Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School (Cafeteria),
2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221.
The meetings will be an open house format with informational displays and
materials available for public review. There will be no formal presentations.
Navy staff will be present to answer general questions on the action and the EIS
process.
To be included on the Navy’s mailing list for the EIS (or to receive a CD copy of
the Draft EIS), submit an electronic request through the project email address,
WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager
(Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506
Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508.
Saturday, September 7, 2013 • The South Whidbey Record WWW.SouThWhidbeyRecoRd.com Page A7

More letters columN


CONTINUED FROM A6

the President of the United enemy. I respect his opinion instability, fear, and violence the slower process of non- north end of the island.
felToNS States and as a United and agree, at least in prin- into the already tumultuous violent engagement has To this day, I have
CONTINUED FROM A6 States naval officer, he was ciple, with his intent. Then, situation. historically proven to bet- no idea about Wallie’s
never given the authority I do not live under the flight There are people on both ter address and ameliorate personal politics. I don’t
ers are in the checkout line, to choose who his enemy path. I disagree adamantly sides of the conflict, as well complicated foreign affairs know whether he is
staff have been trained to was or is. with the threatening tone as other international pow- by providing for human Republican or Democrat.
immediately open another His job was to follow of his viewpoint. That is not ers, who oppose the use of rights and the primary It never mattered.
line. orders, ostensibly to safe- the Navy I know and trust. American force. needs of the people caught Any conversations
guard the people of the GHERRY J. TAYLOR Voices from religious and in the tragedy and after- we had about politics
Going to a wedding? Step Freeland
to the front end of the store United States and their political leadership here and math of war. always centered around
freedoms, among which is abroad, as well as millions To allow us to discuss a candidate’s character
and after asking you two or
the freedom to have and Syria of people of faith and good the Syrian situation as a and ethics, and whether
three questions about the
express opinions and to take will throughout the world, community, the Whidbey they were truly the best
couple, Tamar will pick out
the perfect gift. Her staff peaceful action to resolve Violence not the have affirmed that the path Island Friends Meeting choice to represent
are all ready to do the same. disputes.
answer in Syria of dialogue and negotia- (Quakers) are organizing the people of Whidbey

INSTANT G
You will leave the store with In the discussion of the tions among all components a dessert fundraiser at the Island.
a beautifully wrapped gift in OLF operations, I am sure Editor, of Syrian society, with the Trinity Church Hall Annex For me, Wallie’s ability
no time. no one outside of the lunatic In the past decade the backing of the internation- in Freeland for this Sunday to remain above the fray,
fringe on either side wishes United States has engaged al community, is the only evening, Sept. 8, 7-9 p.m. focus on what’s best for
Cultivate customer rela-
tionships? The Feltons harm to members of our in two largely unsuccess- option to end the conflict All are welcome. This SAVE UP
the community and take
wrote the book on the sub-
ject.
armed forces. We know we
need to keep our pilots cur-
ful military interventions in
Iraq and Afghanistan at a
and the violence that each
day cause the loss of so
gathering will also be an
opportunity for us as individ- CAR INSURA
the path that he believed
to be right is a valuable
MARILEE SELIGSON rent and in practice. But considerable cost of money, many human lives, most of uals and as a community to lesson for all community
Langley jet noise is very loud and lives, and international all among the defenseless petition our Congressional newspaper
Why w a ipublishers.
t to s ave m on
disturbing especially under respect. The American peo- population. representatives.
Rebuttal the departure path of those ple are now asked, through On behalf of the Whidbey TOM EWELL
Clerk
n i g h t for a f re e qu o te o
Navy jets. So I believe the their Congressional reps, to Island Friends Meeting we
Whidbey Island Friends
Navy commander people who live around OLF
are simply asking that the
support yet another poten-
tially disastrous military
strongly urge our fellow citi-
zens to advocate against mil-
Meeting Call my
forgot sworn duty Navy provide such training intervention in Syria with itary intervention in Syria
Editor, and practice facilities else- equally clouded rationale, by contacting Congressman State Farm®
The viewpoint article where. That is their right purpose and goals. Rick Larsen, Sen. Maria Providing Insurance and Financial Services
published in the Aug. 21 and if the Navy does not We oppose this proposed Cantwell and Sen. Patty Home Office, Bloomington, Illinois 61710

edition of The Record by give them satisfaction, it is military intervention. Murray and ask them to
retired Navy Cmdr. William also their right to sue. The reports of the atroci- choose sustainable peace
Simons is a little disturbing. Commander Simons, you ties committed against the efforts through diplomacy.
were sworn to protect that people of Syria, particularly The use of military might Sheila DeLong LTCP, Agent
He stated “that anyone 1796 Main Street, Suite 101
who, through words or right and, I believe, did so the recent allegations of the may seem to be more imme- Freeland, WA 98249
actions, endangers my for 30 years. Our military is use of chemical weapons, diately satisfying, but our Bus: 360-331-1233

friends or comrades-in-arms not charged with protecting are horrendous. Quaker experience is that www.sheiladelong.com

is the enemy.” its own. It is charged with While we strongly Sheila DeLong LTCP, Age
With due respect, I would protecting the citizens of denounce the use of chemi- 1796 Main Street, Suite 101
like to point out to Simons the United States and their cal weapons, we also believe DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Freeland, WA 98249-9428
that the enemy was always constitutional freedoms. that we cannot respond with Bus: 360-331-1233
defined for him by his supe- Defining people with a violence. A unilateral U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY www.sheiladelong.com
rior officers and ultimately different opinion does not attack on Syria, even lim-
warrant them becoming the ited, will introduce further Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G
Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor,
Washington. Like a good neighb
Providing Insuran
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent to prepare an

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER


Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield State FarmOperations
Mutual Automobile Insu
at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington.Bloomington,
The EIS will
IL • Insurance
PO60142 04/06
evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G
Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Land-
ing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the proposed introduction of two additional
As members and attenders of the Whidbey Island Friends Meeting (Quakers) expeditionary squadrons and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement
we believe that war is not the answer in Syria. We acknowledge the call to Squadron (FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental analyses
respond to the horrendous spectacle of innocent people killed by chemical pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the replacement
agents but we oppose military intervention. We believe that we can best sup- of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft with the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS
port and build long-term bonds with the people of Syria by allocating food, Whidbey Island.
water, shelter and medical care for Syrian refugees, as a huge percentage of The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues
the country is currently displaced, and by increasing diplomatic efforts and to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house information sessions will be held
international peacekeeping. between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the following dates:

The following have provided permission in writing to be signatories on the ad: • Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons Area),
Tom Ewell Jeanne Strong Bob Kuehn Jim Hyde
501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239;
Cathy Whitmire Karin Watson Roger Bennett Mary Jane Miller
• Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student
Sue Ellen White Jim Hall Emma Bennett Sarah Schmidt Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277; and
John Goertzel Christine Betz Hall Jim Sundberg Susan Prescott • Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School (Cafeteria),
Toni Grove Isaac Hall Rebecca Sundberg Sharon Daloz Parks 2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221.
Kate Davies Gayle Austin Lance Porter Larry Parks Daloz
The meetings will be an open house format with informational displays and
Friends will be hosting a dessert fundraiser for Syrian refugees and a commu-
materials available for public review. There will be no formal presentations.
Navy staff will be present to answer general questions on the action and the EIS
nity forum on the Syrian situation this coming Sunday evening, September 8, process.
at the Trinity Church Annex in Freeland from 7-9 pm to express our concerns
and petition our Congressional representatives. Please join us. To be included on the Navy’s mailing list for the EIS (or to receive a CD copy of
the Draft EIS), submit an electronic request through the project email address,
Paid for by the Whidbey Island Friends Meeting (Quakers) WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager
Tom Ewell, Clerk (Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506
(360) 341-1457 Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508.
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

Whidbey Examiner 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
Affidavit - Whidbey Examiner
11.28.13

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF


THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF ISLAND
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

In the Matter of Public Meeting _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

STATE OF WASHINGTON
SS .
COUNTY OF ISLAND

The undersigned , being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is
principal clerk of the THE WHIDBEY EXAMINER a week-
ly newspaper. That said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by the Superior Court of Island County and it is now and has
been for more than six months prior to the date of publication herein after
referred to, published in the English language continually as a weekly
newspaper in Island County, Washington, and it is now and during all
of the said time was printed in an office maintained by said newspaper.

That the annexed is a true copy of all advertisement, with


publication dates , as it was published in regular issues (and not in
supplemental form) of said newspaper commencing with the issue of
November 28 and ending with the issue of November 28, 2013.

That said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during


all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing
publication is the sum of$ 189.00

... ~ . ~.!1J.:cft!..~................... .................... .


Subscribed and sworn to me this l '31 day of
~ 0 - ( ) J '101~
,,,,,,,,,,,, ~ l/JA~
~
,,,,, ~\E I
0~ fl'',,,
····o····· l 't:,.JVS~
· ·O~.~··· ...................................................................................... ............... .
~ (j •• N ~..t.1,•
~~,sSI , n ',
' .·~~, ;.,:•. v· ,
~ _.,.<;>· ~tary ~lie in and for the State of Washington Residing at Oak Harbor
: ;
av
NOTARY
(f)e
:
,._
= THE WHIDBEY EXAMINER
: CJ)\ PUBLIC J : P.O. BOX 1200
~A". : ~:
Go• 0 ~
Coupeville, WA 98239
• ,L~'
"1f' -'f'7 C\4.
.0:. r}.. e .,
. , ;"~ "•...<y, 1120,~..00
,.,. '-' O • rooo <>• " ~v ,, rA" '
'~~ • f ; WAS'A\,,''
·,1.1eeaun'''
Page 2 The Whidbey Examiner • Thursday, September 12, 2013

Group forms to save historic Coupeville house


By Megan Hansen public museum. mer reserve historic archi-
Editor Historic Whidbey is plan- tect Annie Matsov, Hyde
ning an open house to help and Matsov nominated and
In a town filled with his- raise money for the pur- successfully had the house
toric treasures, some are out chase. The open house will named to a list of Most En-
for the world to see while oth- be 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday, dangered Properties in Wash-
ers are hidden in plain sight. Sept. 21 in the lot between ington state.
Amongst the hustle and the home and Cook’s Corner Working with the current
bustle of downtown Coupe- Park. homeowner, the group has
ville, lies a hidden gem within The open house will in- halted the house from go-
the historical community. clude small tours inside parts ing back on the market until
The Haller House, located of the house, informational Nov. 1.
on the of corner North Main displays and Mike Vouri of “We’re hoping we can
and Front streets, hides be- San Juan Island National raise enough to establish a
hind tall trees and overgrown Historical Park will speak on lease-to-own,” Hyde said.
shrubbery. the colorful military history Hyde said they hope
It has been uninhabited in the 1850s, from the Treaty to raise between $45,000-
since 2006 and still maintains Era through the Pig War and $50,000 by November.
most of its historic integrity. Civil War – a little-known The house was previously
Put on the market in 2012, history in which Granville on the market for $475,000,
a group of Whidbey history Haller played a significant but the group and homeown-
lovers formed a group with role. er have not established a sale
hopes of purchasing the Lynn Hyde, who works price.
home and turning it into a for Ebey’s Reserve, took on The group has brought Photo provided
the project outside of her 9 in historic architects and his- An undated photo shows Colonel Granville O. Haller outside his Coupeville home. He left the
to 5 job. toric landscapers to assess the area in 1879 and his house still stands.

Probate With the help of for- property’s historic standing.


“We don’t have any way unique in Coupeville’s early surer and founder of Masonic
of knowing what it’s going to chronicles. Sent to the Pacific Temple #15, Haller was an
360-678-4407 cost (to preserve),” Hyde said. Northwest by the U.S. Army active participant in the early
One NW Front St.,Coupeville
Built in the 1866, the during Washington’s treaty growth of Coupeville.
Experienced, Ethical, group hopes to restore the period in the 1850s, he later Over 150 years, different
Professional. house to its original appear- was a player in in the “Pig generations have lived in the
ance. War” (the last boundary dis- home. It has a single toilet
The group also has the pute with Great Britain on and a kitchen sink. It also has
360-222-3121 sponsorship of the Wash- the West Coast) and the Civil limited electrical.
www.robhetler.com ington Trust for Historic War, where he served with the “The idea is to turn it into
Attorneys At LAw visitors welcome Preservation, enabling them Union Army, most notably in a museum focusing on the
to launch their capital cam- the battle of Gettysburg. elements of the region when
paign. Any funds will be fil- After the Civil War, Haller was living here,” Hyde
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE tered through the trust. Haller returned to the Wash- said.
Colonel Granville O. ington Territory and, after The focus of the proposed
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Haller himself was a signifi- buying a parcel of land from museum is not represented
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G cant figure in the Euro-Amer- Capt. Thomas Coupe, he in any other museums in the
Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, ican settlement of the Pacific opened one of the earliest area, she said.
Washington. Northwest. mercantile establishments on For more information go
In a town of sea captains Front Street. to www.historicwhidbey.org
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent to prepare an and farmers, his story is As Island County Trea-
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations
at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will

Whidbey Island Service Directory


evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G
Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Land-
ing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the proposed introduction of two additional
expeditionary squadrons and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement
Squadron (FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the replacement
Monitoring & Maintenance Programs
of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft with the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS
Whidbey Island.
Providing peace of mind
Septic
by keeping you organized. Pumping
The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues
to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house information sessions will be held
between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the following dates: • UPS / Fax / Notary
Bruce Silvia
• Secretarial Services T 360-679-2000
• Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons Area),
• Bookkeeping F 360-675-5281
501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239; Lic. SILVIC1122C9

• Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student • Binding 3149-B N. Goldie Rd. Oak Harbor
Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277; and • Laminating
• Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School (Cafeteria), • Copy & Scan Services:
2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221. black & white
color
Call Teri Mendiola
The meetings will be an open house format with informational displays and blue prints
today to list your
materials available for public review. There will be no formal presentations.
Navy staff will be present to answer general questions on the action and the EIS business here at:
process. 360.678.7543
360.678.4452 fax
Examiner
The Whidbey
To be included on the Navy’s mailing list for the EIS (or to receive a CD copy of 7 S. Main Street, Suite B
the Draft EIS), submit an electronic request through the project email address, Coupeville, Washington 98239
WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager
(Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506
Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508.
frontdesk@branchbusinessservices.com
www.branchbusinessservices.com 360-678-8060
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

Whidbey News Times 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
Affidavit - Whidbey News Times and South
Whidbey Record - 11.23.2013 and 11.30.2013

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF


THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF ISLAND
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION

In the Matter of Public Meeting - - - - - - - -- - - - -

STATE OF WASHINGTON
SS.
COUNTY OF ISLAND

The undersigned, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is
principal clerk of the WHIDBEYNEWS-TIMES/SOUTHWHIDBEY RECORD
a bi-weekly newspaper. That said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by the Superior Court of Island County and it is now and has
been for more than six months prior to the date of publication herein after
referred to, published in the English language continually as a bi-weekly
newspaper in Island County, Washington, and it is now and during all
of the said time was printed in an office maintained by said newspaper.

That the annexed is a true copy of all advertisement, with


publication dates, as it was published in regular issues (and not in
supplemental fonn) of said newspaper commencing with the issue of

November 23, and ending with the issue of November 30, 2013

That said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during


all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing
publication is the sum of$ 1345.68

........ ~~.. ~tr?4?.l~~.......................................


Subscribed and sworn to me this /3 day of
,,,,,,,,,,,, D<-c~h--OV" 70·1:3>
/~~~o~:;~fl~
~ (.) ··~~
-..
: f •a,
c't!!)~········ · · · · · ·
u
~u>'•
-.
,
-
NO~;'y Pu~ic in ! d for the State of Washington Residing at Oak Harbor
:
=. '"\
:
?
ual\C : z
!• ,-....,,.
,0: P.O.
=
WHIDBEY NEWSPAPER GROUP
BOX 1200
- ' V "· •o ..._
, :..>, •.. '<>,~· (!) ~ Coupeville, WA 98239
',.., f >.. •••• 3/111i~;·:)._,~ ~
,, / ~ •••ecoo """-'"' '
~~~, OF Wfi..S ,,,,,
'''''""''''
Page A4 www.WhiDBEYNEWSTIMES.com Saturday, September 7, 2013 • Whidbey News-Times

Element nightclub forced to close its doors


New owner applies for liquor well as the owner’s failure to
follow a series of conditions
stating that it does not want
the same type of business
the Liquor Control Board
responding to the mayor’s
and to keep communication
open to ensure all issues are
of the license. open at that location. concerns, Olson said “in
license despite city opposition The club has also been “It is an obvious concern all honesty, I have seen the
resolved properly.”
Even if Olsen is awarded a
the source of a multitude of from the City of Oak Harbor, issues and the problems, liquor license from the state,
By JANIS REID down,” said Oak Harbor noise complaints from near- the police department and and have wanted to change she still must convince the
Staff reporter Police Chief Ed Green. by condo residents. its residents that the per- the way the business was Oak Harbor City Council to
“Businesses need to prosper. Meanwhile, Jennifer sistent chronic noise, crime ran.” award her a local night club
The Element’s liquor
But there are laws that need Olsen, a former employee and violent criminal activity Olson said she plans to business license.
license was officially
to be followed, and when and manager at Element, will continue and it will be replace staff, increase secu- According to court doc-
revoked Wednesday, Sept. has applied for a new liquor ‘business as usual,” said the rity, provide better training
they started to deplete city uments, on or about Oct.
4 by the Washington State license at the same loca- five-page letter. and other improvements to
resources, we need to look 13, the staff at the Element
Liquor Control Board effec- at how we can do things tion, but under the moniker The letter was signed by the previous operation.
tively ending business at the allowed at least one person
better.” Infusion Lounge, according Mayor Scott Dudley. “All said and done, I am
troubled night spot. to correspondence with the “So I, as mayor of Oak more than willing to com- under the age of 21 to enter
According to city incident
Citing specific incidents reports, the business has a state Liquor Control Board. Harbor, and the Oak Harbor pletely cooperate with and remain in the club.
of over-serving alcohol and history of disruptions and Green said he has dis- Police Department, oppose the Oak Harbor Police On or around Dec. 30, the
serving to minors, the own- violence. cussed the issues at the the issuance of a liquor Department and the City of documents stated, Element
ers of the Oak Harbor night In a memorandum to the Element, which need to be license for the Infusion Oak Harbor officials. I am staff served alcohol to at
spot must surrender their mayor last year, Green wrote addressed by Olsen before Lounge, LLC (operated by completely willing to comply least one apparently intoxi-
liquor license paperwork that city officials should con- the city will agree to allow Jennifer Olson). There is a with all laws and regulations cated person.
within 30 days, according to sider revoking the Element’s another night club there. concern the past behavior at all times. I am completely At least one employee was
court documents. nightclub license based on The City of Oak Harbor will continue under the aus- willing to seek help and assis- cited for not maintaining the
“It was never the objec- a series of violent incidents filed a letter of opposition pices of a new owner.” tance of law enforcement proper liquor serving per-
tive to close the business associated with the club, as to the Liquor Control Board In a Sept. 2 email to before there are problems, mit.

City council approves marijuana moratorium


By JANIS REID of both recreational and med- Development Services to give city planners time to
Staff reporter ical marijuana businesses. Director Steve Powers rec- study the issue.
The Oak Harbor City Neither measure affects ommended the six-month Powers noted that the
Council passed a six-month existing medical marijuana moratorium on both medi- state Liquor Control Board is
moratorium on the opening dispensaries. cal and recreational ventures still developing regulations,
which are expected to be
released by mid-October.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE At the end of the six
months, the council has
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY the option of extending the
moratorium for another six
months.
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G While saying she under-
Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, stands the need to place a
Washington. moratorium on recreational
marijuana, Councilwoman
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent to prepare an Tara Hizon questioned the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations need to halt future medical
at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will marijuana operations since it
evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G has been legal in this state for
Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Land- some time.
Suzie Chin Dresses ∙ Naot Shoes
ing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the proposed introduction of two additional Powers said that a lot of
Smart Wool Socks ∙ Hobo Handbags
Not Your Daughters Jeans
expeditionary squadrons and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement local municipalities “chose
Squadron (FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental analyses to wait and see what would
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the replacement happen with I-502,” the rec-
C A S U A L of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft with the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS reational marijuana initiative
Whidbey Island. that was approved by voters,
and then address the two
H O U S E SEE WHAT IS NEW ON
The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues similar issues together.
fashion - footwear - gifts OUR FACEBOOK PAGE! to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house information sessions will be held The law created by I-502
between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the following dates: comes with many restric-
Downtown Oak Harbor 851 SE PIONEER WAY, SUITE 102 tions, including the require-
OAK HARBOR, WA 98277
360.675.2541
Mon-Sat 9:30-5:30 ∙ Sun 12-4 360.679.7224
• Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons Area), ment that marijuana-related
501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239; businesses be no closer than
• Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student 1,000 feet from schools, play-
NEW IMAGE Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277; and grounds, parks, child care
facilities, transit stations,
SALON • Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School (Cafeteria),
2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221. libraries and arcades.
Other than these require-
The meetings will be an open house format with informational displays and ments, the law leaves zoning
materials available for public review. There will be no formal presentations. and land use decisions up to
Men’s & Women’s local jurisdictions.
WE DO PERMS Apparel and Gifts Navy staff will be present to answer general questions on the action and the EIS
process. Councilman Bob Severns
830 SE Pioneer Way asked when staff would map
Appointments Recommended
permimeter regulations.
360-675-4686 Suite 104 To be included on the Navy’s mailing list for the EIS (or to receive a CD copy of Powers said that would
665 SE PIONEER WAY, #3
DOWNTOWN OAK HARBOR the Draft EIS), submit an electronic request through the project email address, be “step one” for the staff
DOWNTOWN OAK HARBOR 360.544.3042 WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager because it will inform the
(Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506 council’s decisions on land
Support your Oak Harbor businesses! Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508. use and regulation.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013 • Whidbey News-Times WWW.WHIDBEYNEWSTIMES.COM Page A3

Picnic honors military service


By JANIS REID our sailors and their fami- Toppins Frozen Yogurt
Staff reporter lies, I would like to thank the donated more than $1,200
A little rain couldn’t damp- community for the Military worth of yogurt to the event,
en the support for the armed Appreciation Picnic.” Reed said.
services Saturday. The event is put on by “Attendance was down
Despite some morning the Navy League each year due to the morning weather,
drizzle, Oak Harbor’s 13th to bring the community but overall the event was
annual Military Appreciation together and remind them well attended,” Reed said.
Picnic at Windjammer Park that Oak harbor is not two “Everyone had a great time,
saw steady traffic from area communities, but one, said food was delicious and we
military families and support- Oak Harbor Navy League couldn’t have asked for a bet-
ers. President Jim Slowik. ter day. We wanted to let the
Attendees enjoyed free Slowik, who helped plan military know how important
hotdogs from 7-Eleven, fro- the event, said that the weath- they are to us.”
zen yogurt from Toppins, a er “slowed picnic goers,” but To involve Coupeville
pulled pork meal and other the skies opened up just in residents in the picnic,
donations of time and prod- Old Glory flies at the Military time for a great event made Shelli Trumball, of Cascade
ucts from Coupeville and Appreciation Picnic in Oak possible by more than 100 Insurance on South Main
Oak Harbor businesses and Harbor Saturday. volunteers. Street, led the charge to
individuals. “It’s important in a lot of acquire water, juice and soda
Capt. Mike Nortier, com- ments, to the dramatic out- ways,” Slowik said. “It’s the for the event.
manding officer for Whidbey pouring of support from the glue that fills between the The City of Coupeville has
Island Naval Air Station, community following the loss spaces. This community is taken some flack in recent
expressed his gratitude of three crew members in truly a combined community months after a Coupeville-
from the Naval community March, to sailors and their of Navy and civilian.” area citizens group filed a
Monday for the ongoing sup- families volunteering and “The picnic is a good way lawsuit against the Navy
port and partnership of Oak supporting charities and civic to show that.” protesting the jet noise at
Harbor. events throughout the year.” Oak Harbor Chamber Outlying Field Coupeville.
“The picnic is one small Nortier stressed the need of Commerce Executive Trumball said she and
token of the community sup- for the island to continue to Director Kathy Reed said the other Coupeville businesses
port,” Nortier said. “Oak think and operate as a team. community response to the joined forces with local cham-
Harbor and Naval Air Station “Team Whidbey is not just event was “fantastic.” bers of commerce to show
Whidbey Island enjoy an a motto, but a spirit that we Reed said there was plenty their support for the Navy.
enduring sense of commu- all live and breathe, whether of food left over to go to the “Not ever yone in
nity partnership, which can military or civilian,” Nortier North Whidbey Help House, Coupeville is against the mili-
be seen daily across the city said. “On behalf of a grate- and water will be kept for tary or OLF,” Trumball said.
Photos by Janis Reid/Whidbey News-Times
from support in the Oak ful Navy, Naval Air Station future charitable organiza- “This is our way of show-
Armed services supporters turned out for Oak Harbor’s annual Harbor school system for Whidbey Island and all of tions. ing our support.”
Military Appreciation Picnic Saturday. military families and deploy-

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G
Growler Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor,
Washington.
The U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) announces its intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for EA-18G Growler Airfield Operations
at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. The EIS will
evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing EA-18G
Growler airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Land-
ing Field (OLF) Coupeville, including the proposed introduction of two additional
expeditionary squadrons and the addition of aircraft to the Fleet Replacement
Squadron (FRS). In 2005 and 2012, the Navy prepared environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the replacement
of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft with the newer EA-18G Growler aircraft at NAS
Whidbey Island.
The scoping process will be used to identify community concerns and local issues
to be addressed in the EIS. Three open house information sessions will be held FREE PICK UP TAX RECEIPT
between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the following dates: FOR DONATIONS PROMOTE REUSE/RECYCLING
Your Purchase Makes Call Us Today
• Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at Coupeville High School (Commons Area), A Difference To
501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239; Families In Need Visit our Stores
• Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at Oak Harbor High School (Student
Union Building), 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277; and
• Thursday, December 5, 2013 at Anacortes Middle School (Cafeteria),
GREAT FOR DORM OR YOUTH BEDROOM!
2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, Washington 98221. FREE Twin Extra Long Mattress with
The meetings will be an open house format with informational displays and
purchase of Captains Bed for
materials available for public review. There will be no formal presentations.
Navy staff will be present to answer general questions on the action and the EIS
ONLY $95.00
process. • Solid wood
• 4 drawers for storage
To be included on the Navy’s mailing list for the EIS (or to receive a CD copy of • lift up door to storage cabinet behind drawers
the Draft EIS), submit an electronic request through the project email address, • ball bearing glides on drawers
WhidbeyEIS@navy.mil or a written request to: EA-18G EIS Project Manager • headboard included
(Code EV21/SS); Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, 6506
Hampton Blvd, Norfolk, VA 23508. OAK HARBOR FREELAND
360-675-8733 360-331-6272
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

Public Meeting Materials 

Appendix J 
NAS Whidbey Island Complex Growler FEIS, Volume 4  June 2017 

This page intentionally left blank. 

Appendix J 
Welcome
Scoping Meeting
U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement for the EA-18G Growler
Airfield Operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island

Open House Public Scoping Meetings – 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm


Coupeville High School, Commons Area
Tuesday December 3, 2013
501 South Main Street, Coupeville, WA 98239
Oak Harbor High School, Student Union Building
Wednesday December 4, 2013 1 Wildcat Way, Oak Harbor, WA 98277
Anacortes Middle School, Cafeteria
Thursday December 5, 2013
2202 M Avenue, Anacortes, WA 98221

What’s Inside:
• Welcome • The Growler at • Aircraft Noise
• Introduction: Public Scoping NAS Whidbey Island • Public Involvement Process
• The EIS Process • Proposed Action • Notes Pages

Please Sign In
Scoping is your opportunity to provide comments to help us focus our analysis.

For more information, please visit the


project website at: www.whidbeyeis.com
Welcome Introduction

Welcome Public Scoping


The official scoping period began when the Navy published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Thank you for attending today’s public scoping open house.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register on September 5, 2013. The EIS
The proposed action will include the addition of two Growler expeditionary squadrons (10 aircraft)
will evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed introduction of two
and the addition of three Growler aircraft to the training squadron. The Navy will prepare an EIS to
additional Growler expeditionary squadrons and the addition of Growler aircraft to the training
evaluate the potential environmental effects of this proposal. Navy representatives are here today
squadron. The Navy is also proposing to continue and increase Growler operations at NAS Whidbey
to explain the proposed project, answer questions, and describe the environmental impact analysis
Island’s Ault Field and Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville and to study the distribution of
process and related timeline. An area has been set aside to provide you with an opportunity to write
operations between those two airfields. The Navy has extended the minimum 45-day scoping period
and submit your comments, or to speak with a stenographer who will record your comments.
to 120 days. Comments may be submitted through January 3, 2014.
Scoping meetings are being held to solicit input from the public on what should be analyzed and
studied in the EIS. Scoping is one of the first steps in the EIS process, and your input during the
scoping period is important. Alternatives are currently being developed. No decisions about the What Is the Purpose of This Public Scoping Meeting?
proposal have been made, and the impact analysis has not yet started. Scoping is an early and open process where the public is invited
to help identify issues to be studied in the EIS. The purpose of Scoping is an early and open
this scoping meeting is to inform you about the proposed project, process where the public is
explain the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the invited to help identify issues
During the scoping period, the public can provide comments in four ways: associated environmental impact analysis, and solicit your to be studied in the EIS.

1. Provide written comments at today’s meeting comments and concerns related to the proposal.

2. Speak with the stenographer, who will record your comments Please review the displays located throughout the open house, talk with our representatives, and
then provide us with your comments. You may also take a comment sheet home with you and mail
3. Submit comments electronically on the project website (www.whidbeyeis.com) your written comments to us through the end of the scoping period (January 3, 2014).
4. Mail comments to: The approximate layout of the room is shown below.
EA-18G Grower EIS Project Manager
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic
General Room Layout for Open House Public Scoping Meeting, 4:00 – 8:00 pm
6506 Hampton Boulevard (Actual layout may be different)
Norfolk, VA 23508
Attn: Code EV21/SS
Station 2 Station 3 Station 4
Growler History Proposed Action Aircraft Noise

The project website will be updated periodically throughout the EIS process to keep you informed.
The website will contain public announcements and electronic versions of public information such

Public Involvement
NEPA - Areas of
as the Draft EIS.

Station 1

Station 5
Analysis
Table

Table Table

Thank You Poster


Your Participation
Welcome Poster/

Comment Box
Sign-In Sheet

Comments/
Exit
Stenographer

Enter

2 For more information, please visit the project website at www.whidbeyeis.com 3


The EIS Process The EIS Process

Why Is the Navy Preparing an EIS?

For more information, please visit the project website at whidbeyeis.com


As part of our compliance with NEPA, the Navy is conducting NEPA requires that all

• Local community services


an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the federal agencies consider the

• Environmental justice
• Transportation/traffic
proposed project. NEPA is the national charter for promoting environmental impacts of any

• Ault Field, OLF Coupeville, and surrounding communities


What Is Important to You?
productive harmony between humans and the environment and major proposed projects.
minimizing the impacts of federal actions. This law requires

• Number of aircraft operations and flight paths

• Aircraft, maintenance, and vehicle emissions


all federal agencies to consider potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions and
reasonable options in making decisions about those actions. Public involvement is an essential part

Biological and Natural Resources


esources
• Hazardous and toxic materials
aterials
of the process. With public involvement and environmental analysis, the NEPA process helps the

• Water quality, stormwater


ce
• Aircraft and maintenance

• Archaeological resources
Navy arrive at the best possible informed decision.

and endangered speciess


• Wildlife and vegetation
• Land use compatibility

• Protected, threatened,
National Environmental Policy Act

• Civil aviation impacts


Airfields and Airspace

• Historic structures
Cultural Resources
• Economic effects
• Potential growth
Informed decisions are based on a candid and factual representation of environmental impacts.
These facts come from collecting information on the areas and resources affected by the proposal

operations

and waste
Community

Air Quality
and then identifying the type and extent of potential impacts resulting from the proposal.

Safety
Noise
For this project, the Navy will analyze potential impacts to noise, air quality, safety, land use and

Your scoping comments will help us focus our study.


compatibility, socioeconomics, community services, transportation, biological resources, cultural

Areas of Analysis
resources, and hazardous materials and waste, among other resources. Numerous federal laws and

i (September 5, 2013, to January 3, 2014)


regulations govern the protection and preservation of environmental resources. The Navy strictly

Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS (September 5, 2013)

Agency Comment
adheres to these laws and regulations, such as the Endangered Species

45-Day

Period
Informed decisions are Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act, among others. The EIS will

Record of Decision (Spring 2016)


based on candid and evaluate direct and indirect impacts, and will account for cumulative

30-Day Waiting Period


Draft EIS (Spring 2015)
EIS Process
factual presentation of
impacts from other relevant activities near the installation. Measures
environmental impacts.

Final EIS
that could avoid or mitigate environmental effects will also be analyzed.

Public Comment Period


Public Involvement in the EIS Process

and Public Meeting


i PPeriod

45-Day
The Navy invites public participation during the scoping process to help understand community-

We Are Here
bli SScoping
specific issues and concerns regarding the proposed action. We expect to receive scoping comments
from interested individuals; business and community leaders; federal, state, and local officials;

Public
Native American tribes and nations; regulatory agencies; and non-governmental associations.
No decisions about the proposal have been

environmental concerns that need to be evaluated in the Draft EIS


made because the impact analysis has not yet

• Scoping is an early and open process through which the public is


invited to help identify issues to be studied in the Environmental

• We are early in the process, and your input during the expanded
evaluate potential environmental impacts of any major actions
they may propose and to inform and involve the public in the
started. Scoping comments will help the Navy

• NEPA is the national law that requires all federal agencies to

public scoping period will assist the Navy in identifying key

• Findings will be published in the EIS, which will describe:


determine the issues and concerns to analyze in

• A Draft EIS will be made available for public review and


comment before any decision is made or actions taken
the preparation of the Draft EIS.

National Environmental Policy Act


The public will have a second opportunity to

 Evaluation of Impacts
 Existing Conditions
participate in the NEPA process after publication

Expanded public scoping period extends from


September 5, 2013, to January 3, 2014
of the Draft EIS. The release of the Draft EIS and
the opening of the Draft EIS comment period will
be announced in a newspaper that serves your

decision-making process

Impact Statement (EIS)


(NEPA) Process
area, and additional meetings will be held to

Purpose and Need


receive comments on the report. All comments on

Proposed Action
and Alternatives
the Draft EIS will be addressed in a Final EIS.




4 For more information, please visit the project website at www.whidbeyeis.com 5
The Growler at NAS Whidbey Island The Growler at NAS Whidbey Island

NAS Whidbey Island

For more information, please visit the project website at whidbeyeis.com


NAS Whidbey Island is an integral part of Whidbey Island and the area community. It is the only
center of excellence for electronic combat warfare training (electronic surveillance and attack) and
is the home of all Navy electronic attack (VAQ) squadrons in the United States. NAS Whidbey
Island has supported the VAQ community for more than 30 years. Growler operations began at NAS
Whidbey Island in 2009. The Navy is currently replacing the aging Prowler with newer Growler.
The VAQ aircraft deploy on both land (expeditionary squadrons) and on aircraft carriers (carrier-
based squadrons). Additionally, NAS Whidbey Island has a training squadron that provides training

The Growler at NAS Whidbey Island


to pilots before they join their squadrons.

NAS Whidbey Island is home to all Navy electronic attack squadrons in the U.S.
Carrier squadrons conduct field carrier
landing practice (FCLP), a graded flight
exercise that trains pilots for landing on
aircraft carriers, at both Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville. FCLP is conducted on a runway
that is designed to simulate the flight deck

EA-18G Growler
on an aircraft carrier. OLF Coupeville is
designed to simulate the experience of
landing on a carrier and provides the most
realistic training for landing on a carrier.

The Growler
The training and mission needs of the Navy have changed over time, and efforts to ensure
appropriate environmental analyses continue to evolve as well. In 2005, the Navy evaluated the
environmental impacts of transitioning carrier and training squadrons from the Prowler to the newer
Growler aircraft. The 2005 Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzed 57 Growler aircraft replacing

• Home of all Navy electronic attack (VAQ) squadrons in the U.S. since 1970

Training squadron, which provides training to air crews before they join their squadrons
• The Navy is currently replacing the aging Prowler with the newer Growler.
72 Prowler aircraft, including the disestablishment of three expeditionary squadrons. In 2009, a

• Field Carrier Landing Practice (FLCP) is essential training to prepare for

• Training relies on two airfields to support air operations, Ault Field and
Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum directed the Navy to maintain the expeditionary VAQ

The transition is expected to be completed in the 2015 timeframe.


capabilities indefinitely. As a result, in 2012, the Navy prepared an EA that analyzed retaining

• Air crews require continuous training to maintain their skills


NAS Whidbey Island’s VAQ Community
three expeditionary VAQ squadrons that operated the Prowlers and their transition to Growlers.
Additionally, the 2012 EA analyzed the relocation

OLF Coupeville provides realistic training for carrier landings


Expeditionary squadrons, which deploy to land-based sites
Carrier-based squadrons, which deploy on aircraft carriers
of a reserve Prowler squadron from Andrews Air
Force Base and the transition of that squadron to

Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville


Growlers at NAS Whidbey Island.

• Three types of Navy VAQ squadrons:

EA--18G Growler, manufactured by Boeing


The Navy recently announced its intent to prepare
an EIS to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of continuing Growler operations at Ault
Field and OLF Coupeville and adding a total of 13

carrier landings
Growler aircraft to NAS Whidbey Island.

EA-18G





6 For more information, please visit the project website at www.whidbeyeis.com 7
Proposed Action Proposed Action

What Is the Navy Proposing?

environmental impacts of a transition of carrier and training

squadrons and relocating a reserve expeditionary squadron

For more information, please visit the project website at whidbeyeis.com


• Today: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate
The Navy is proposing to add two expeditionary VAQ squadrons (10 additional Growler aircraft)

adding two expeditionary Growler squadrons, conducting


more Growler operations, and to study the distribution of
• 2009: Growler began operation at NAS Whidbey Island
and three additional Growler aircraft to the training squadron. The Navy is also proposing to

Growler operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville.


squadrons from Prowler to Growler aircraft and the
disestablishment of three expeditionary squadrons

• 2012: EA evaluated retaining three expeditionary


• 2005: Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluated
continue and increase existing VAQ airfield operations at NAS Whidbey Island’s Ault Field and OLF
Coupeville. As a part of this proposal, the Navy would study the distribution of Growler operations
between Ault Field and OLF Coupeville. The Navy would also construct and renovate facilities at

EA-18G Growler History at


Ault Field over a three-year period to accommodate additional aircraft and would station additional
personnel and associated family members to NAS Whidbey Island and the surrounding community.

NAS Whidbey Island


The Navy is studying an increase in Growler operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville.
The EIS will evaluate the potential environmental effects of the No Action Alternative and one or

to NAS Whidbey Island


more other alternatives related to different levels of operations.
• No Action Alternative: Provides a baseline for • Station up to 860 additional personnel
comparison and supports the level of annual Prowler at NAS Whidbey Island
and Growler operations analyzed in the 2005 and • Relocate approximately 2,150 family
2012 EAs. members to NAS Whidbey Island and
• Operational Scenarios: The Navy is developing the surrounding community

• Arrival, departure, touch-and-go, and Field Carrier Landing


action alternatives. Supporting air operations and

Proposed Action

• Allows for mission-critical training to occur at Ault Field


• Primary airfield that supports multiple types of aircraft
noise studies are underway to inform the development of these alternatives.

(P-3s, P-8As, Prowlers, Growlers, C-9s, MH-60s,

• One 5,400-foot runway that meets FCLP training


Why Is the Navy Proposing This Action?
NAS Whidbey Island is the home of all Navy VAQ squadrons flying the Prowler and Growler aircraft

• Two 8,000-foot intersecting runways

• Provides most realistic FCLP training


in the U.S. The continued operations are required in order to support the Navy’s electronic attack

• Dedicated airfield to support FCLP


aircraft capabilities. The proposed action is needed to maintain attack operational readiness to
support national defense requirements as specified in the United States Code (Title 10, Part 5062)

Practice (FCLP) operations

• Crucial to training mission


and also to sustain and continue to support all other aircraft missions at NAS Whidbey Island.

OLF Coupeville
NAS Whidbey Island manages two primary aircraft training fields, Ault Field and OLF Coupeville,

and transients)

requirements
OLF Coupeville
which are often used simultaneously to safely and effectively handle air traffic. Both airfields are

Where?
Ault Field
integral to the training-mission support provided by NAS Whidbey Island and will both continue to
be operational in the future.
Ault Field, Oak Harbor, WA OLF Coupeville, Island County, WA
• Primary airfield that supports multiple types • Dedicated airfield to support FCLP and

distribution of Growler operations between Ault Field and


• Add two new expeditionary electronic attack squadrons

members to NAS Whidbey Island and the surrounding


of aircraft provides the most realistic training for landing

• Station additional personnel and associated family


on a carrier

• Conduct more Growler operations and study the


• Two 8,000-foot intersecting runways

• Construct and renovate facilities at Ault Field


• 5,400-foot runway that meets FCLP

What Is the Navy Proposing?


training requirements
• Allows for mission-critical training to occur at

Approximately 2,150 family members


Ault Field

Up to 860 additional personnel


beginning in 2016

OLF Coupeville

community

Ault Field


Ault Field OLF Coupeville
8 For more information, please visit the project website at www.whidbeyeis.com 9
Aircraft Noise Aircraft Noise

What Is Noise?

operations and the potential impacts of the alternatives, using the


latest in approved computer modeling and acoustical information.
117 dB

113 dB

113 dB

116 dB
Growler

• The Prowler is associated with a higher frequency sound of its

For more information, please visit the project website at whidbeyeis.com


• The Growler is recognizable by the low frequency “rumble” of
Noise is defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities.

include a comprehensive noise study of NAS Whidbey Island


The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) will
• Noise measurements show that Growler noise levels are
123 dB

114 dB

114 dB

115 dB

• Noise levels vary depending on where you are in the


The Draft EIS will include a comprehensive study of NAS Whidbey Island operations and the

Prowler
potential impacts of the alternatives. The study will use the latest approved computer modeling and

Comparison of Single-Event (Sound Exposure Level)


acoustical information on the Prowler and the Growler. Once projected noise exposure levels are

Altitude (Feet above

Prowler and Growler Noise


Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is the federal standard for determining community noise impacts. determined, they will be assessed for their potential to impact the natural and human environment.

Ground Level)

1,000
1,000

1,000

600
Noise Levels by Aircraft Type in dB

similar to those of the Prowler.


How Is Noise Assessed?
Response to Noise Depends on Many Factors

Landing Practice Coupeville)


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Landing Practice Ault Field)


• How long the noise lasts (duration)
Federal Aviation Administration, and Department

Pattern (Field Carrier

Pattern (Field Carrier


• How many times it occurs (repetition)

its jet engines.


flight pattern.
of Defense (DoD) measure aircraft operational

jet engines.
• Time of day
Operation Type

noise levels in decibels (dB) using two common


• Background or ambient noise levels
metrics: the Day-Night Average Sound Level
Take-off

Landing

dB = decibel
• Interference with activity
(DNL) and Sound Exposure Level (SEL). • Previous experiences within
DNL represents the average sound energy of the community

• The average sound-level exposure, measured in dB, over

• Represents the total noise energy of a single event, such


events over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB
Aircraft Noise

• Used to determine long-term community response to

• Depicted as a continuous line around a noise source


• A 10-dB penalty is added to noise events occurring
penalty added to night-time (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) operations. This 10-dB penalty accounts for
Requires Close Attention to Notice

Dramatic...Twice or Half as Loud

the added intrusiveness of noise when background noise levels are low and noise-sensitive activities

environmental noise, particularly aircraft noise

as a flyover, as if it occurred in one second


such as sleep take place. DNL is depicted as a continuous line around a noise source (i.e., a
Striking...Fourfold Change

Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)

contour line) and is usually shown using 5-DNL increments (e.g., 65 DNL, 70 DNL, 75 DNL). DNL
Barely Perceptible

takes all of those factors that influence our perception of noise—loudness, number and duration of
Quite Noticeable

between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.


Change in Perceived Loudness

events, and time of day—and includes them in one metric that is used to identify land uses that are

Sound Exposure Level (SEL)


Calculating Noise

compatible within specific noise zones.


a 24-hour period

SEL represents the total noise energy of a single event, such as a flyover, as if it occurred in one
(contour line)

second. This metric combines the loudness and duration of the event.
20 dB
10 dB

dB = decibel
1 dB

3 dB

5 dB